Sex Roles

Biology v. Culture  


from Chapter 3 of

Sex and Politics

Sex Differences v. Dogma


Walter R. Dolen

Copyright (c) 1997, 2008 by Walter R. Dolen.
All rights reserved, except as follows:
You may download this work for personal use only, not for commercial use.
Published by the BeComingOne Press

Order a copy


Sex Roles1

Margaret Mead and Cultural Conditioning 5

Mead's Superficial Studies 10

Mead's Superficial Foreign Language Knowledge 11

Other Points Against Mead's Work 13

Experimental Societies Versus The Claims of Radical feminists 21

Kibbutz 24

Sex Role Neutrality-at-Birth Theory 31

Chapter 7 & 8 of Money's Book 38

Biology Limits and Causes Behavior 56

What the Socialization Theory Cannot Explain 64

Conclusions on Sex Role Development 65

References for Chapter 3 67

Sex Role Development

All 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 Foolishness

At 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:

(1) "Indeed, this whole revolution, or evolution, of sex roles is in large part a protest against blocking out at any early age one-half of a boy's (or girl's) potential as a human being. The mothers and fathers who are now buying dolls for their small boys, and giving a free choice of toys to their offspring of both sexes, want to help their boys to develop those capacities for feeling and affection that have somehow been considered 'girlish' and therefore weak."

(2) "Women learn to be flexible because their work is always being interrupted....Boys don't learn to do several things at a time because there's this notion that men mustn't be disturbed at their work."

(3) "Another thing some boys reared in the traditional ways apparently fail to learn is how to modify that 'all boy' energy and vigor...."[6]

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 Conditioning

According to the well known anthropologist, Margaret Mead:

"All known human societies recognize the anatomic and functional differences between males and females in intricate and complex ways; through insistence on small nuances of behavior in posture, stance, gait, through language, ornamentation and dress, division of labor, legal social status, religious role, etc."[8]

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:

"Cross-cultural research suggests that there are no absolute personality differences between men and women, that many of the characteristics we normally classify as masculine or feminine tend to differentiate both the males and females in one culture from those in another, and in still other cultures to be the reverse of our expectations.

Margaret Mead's studies describe societies in which both men and women are gentle and nonaggressive (the Arapesh); in which women dislike childbearing and children and both sexes are angry and aggressive (the Mundugumor); in which women are unadorned, brisk and efficient, whether in childrearing, fishing, or marketing, while men are decorated and vain, interested in art, theater, and petty gossip (the Tchambuli)...."[9]

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:

"This is not to claim that within most cultures, male and female differences do not generally conform to our traditional expectations. George Murdock's and Roy D'Andrade's data on the division of labor by sex indicate that most work is divided regularly between men and women, along conventional lines. Men's work, for instance, is strenuous, cooperative, and...may require long periods of travel'; women's work is mainly associated with food gathering and preparation, crafts, clothing manufacture, child care, and so forth."[10]

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:

These three situations suggest, then, a very definite conclusion. If those temperamental attitudes which we have traditionally regarded as feminine -- such as passivity, responsiveness, and a willingness to cherish children -- can so easily be set up as the masculine pattern in one tribe, and in another be outlawed for the majority of women as well as for the majority of men, we no longer have any basis for regarding such aspects of behavior as sex-linked. And this conclusion becomes even stronger when we consider the actual reversal in Tchambuli of the position of dominance of the two sexes, in spite of the existence of formal patrilineal institutions. The material suggest that we may say that many, if not all, of the personality traits which we have called masculine or feminine are as lightly linked to sex as are the clothing, the manners, and the form of head-dress that a society at a given period assigns to either sex.... We are forced to conclude that human nature is almost unbelievably malleable, responding accurately and contrastingly to contrasting cultural conditions. The differences between individuals who are members of different cultures, like the differences between individuals within a culture, are almost entirely to be laid to differences in conditioning, especially during early childhood, and the form of this conditioning is culturally determined. Standardized personality differences between the sexes are of this order....[13] (my emphasis)

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:

"In the division of labour, in dress, in manners, in social and religious functioning -- sometimes in only a few of these respects, sometimes in all -- men and women are socially differentiated, and each sex, and a sex, forced to conform to the role assigned to it."[14]

Moreover in Mead's thinking, as in many radical feminists' thinking, if society recognized individual differences instead of conditioned sex differences:

"It might abandon its various attempts to make boys fight and to make girls remain passive, or to make all children fight, and instead shape our educational institutions to develope to the full the boy who shows a capacity for maternal behavior, the girl who shows an opposite capacity that is stimulated by fighting against obstacles. No skill, no special aptitude, no vividness of imagination or precision of thinking would go because the child who possessed it was of one sex rather than the other."[15]

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:

"I refer you back to Margaret Mead who more than 50 years ago, who in her studies of the New Guinea nation and tribes, came to the conclusion that sex roles result from social learning rather than biologically inherited tendencies.

In other words she is saying that it is cultural, not biological. I am sure you will recall that among the Mundugumor Tribe of New Guinea both the sexes acted about the same; they were hostile, aggressive and violent, qualities that we generally associated with men in this country.

In the Tchambuli Tribe, the women were practical, domineering and aggressive; the men sensitive, artistic, emotional, and dependent.

In other words, the roles were theoretically reversed.

In the Arapesh, the men had the general temperament which some people think is feminine.

Do you believe that men and women, except for the one or two obvious differences, the differences of sex and the fact that women do have babies, do you think that men and women are really about the same?

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 Studies

Arapesh, 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:

"In a recent treatise Mead has presented a mass of descriptive evidence favoring the extreme environmental hypothesis for the causes of sex difference in personality....

That Mead's contribution offers impressive evidence of the modifiability of human temperament will be readily conceded, but we are by no means convinced that the case for nurture is as strong as a casual perusal of her book would suggest....It is not to be supposed that the field anthropologist, any more than the psychologist, is immune to error in such estimates [of the degree of masculinity or femininity]; indeed, because the groups under observation by him belong to an alien culture, and because his command of the tribal language is almost invariably limited, the anthropologist who attempts to rate the masculinity or femininity of behavior in a primitive tribal group labors under tremendous disadvantages."(p. 46l)

Mead, herself, adds to this thought train of Terman and Miles in one of her writings:

"explicitly, as a matter of training we [anthropologists] send our students out to remote and exotic peoples, where they will be exposed to ways of behavior quite different from our own, so different in fact that no effort of the mind will work that simply redefines the new ways in terms of the known old ways. Living among a people all of whose ways are alien, anthropologists make many adjustments. We learn to speak, or at least to hear and think, in quite different languages, in which there may be many genders or none, in which words may be put together in ways that defy all our attempts to fit them into our familiar grammatical categories...."[17]

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 Knowledge

Mead 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 Work

Biased 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:

"In the specific case at hand, it is no reflection upon Dr. Mead to call attention to the fact, verifiable by examination of her earlier writings, that she entered upon her study of sex and temperament with definite leanings toward the environment hypotheses in the interpretations of human behavior patterns. If the composite verbal pictures of her three New Guinea tribes had been sketched by a equally competent observer of different bias, there is no way of knowing how they would have differed from the dramatic contrasts presented; we can only be certain that they would have differed."(p.462)

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:

"The life history of the individual is first and foremost an accommodation to the patterns and standards traditionally handed down in his community. From the moment of his birth the customs into which he is born shape his experience and behaviour." (p. 18)

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:

"Where 'logic' is regarded as male, and 'intuition' as female, little girls with a capacity for logical thought may be pushed toward [sex role] inversion as a preference, for a socially perceived difference between expectations for men and women, or as an identification with a father whose mind corresponds to the cultural stereotype." (Mead, p. 1455, in 111)

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:

"She [Mead] often states what does not appear among the "X" or "Y" -- in comparison usually to the American family -- than what does appear. The system reference continually shifts, which is confusing from the present point of view, if not from her own. And if she had realized what she was saying in certain cases, she certainly would have looked twice. Such, for instance, is the case for the Arapesh."[26]

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:

In presenting her material, Dr. Mead constantly asks us to accept at their face value her own formulations, in a different language, of the attitude of individual natives and, more questionable still, of the culture as a whole. To describe, for example, the Mundugumor as "a society that counts loyalty to be a stupid disregard of the real facts about the essential enmity which exists between all males" implies a degree of abstract formulation not usually found in primitive society, and the manner in which such concepts are used without any attempt to correlate, them with real human behavior suggests that the ethnographer merely hypostatized her own impressions of native life. Such impressions may be wholly or partially correct or may be entirely misleading. The absence of detailed and comprehensive documentation makes it impossible to decide, and the position was well summarized by Nadel: "One cannot help feeling dubious and a little helpless in face of this ambitious theory of sex, based as it is on so meager a material, and so simplifying and elusive an interpretation. The complete lack of exact definitions and tangible criteria in Dr. Mead's book turns this most intricate problem of human psychology into a subject of novelistic exercise rather than of scientific examination."

In spite, however, of the lack of documentation, we should be more inclined to accept Dr. Mead's impressions if there were indications that the facts had been comprehensively observed and objectively considered. Unfortunately, so far as empirical material is cited at all, it is always from a specific point of view, and it is impossible to escape the conclusion that facts which might lead to an entirely different type of interpretation have been overlooked, while we find the same facts interpreted in contradictory ways in different contexts, in order to fit them into the pattern. (pp. 633-634)

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:

(a) The Tchambuli people when studied had seven to eight years previously just been brought back to their ancestral land by the government because they had fled their land in fear of the warlike Iatmuls. The Tchambuli people were in the process of trying to rebuild their broken culture when Mead was studying them.[27] Such a broken primitive culture, that has been transplanted or restricted from its native land, is filled with problems, as indicated by the Ik tribe's experience.[28] Such problems do affect the broken culture's behavior.

(b) The Mundugumor people when studied, "presented the picture of a broken culture. Ceremonials were infrequent; a large number of men were away at work [this explains why the women had to fish, climb coconut trees, and their seemly aggressive behavior -- their men were away], only a few of the first group of recruits to go away had come home."[29]

(c) The Mountain Arapesh when studied had a big problem obtaining food, "Conditions of life are hard, food is scarce, the protein intake is very inadequate, and members of the tribe who live under primitive conditions exist well below their potential energy output...."[30] This helps to explain why the men of this culture seemed more co-operative, nonaggressive, had little sex drive, and so forth. It is well known that men pound per pound must have more protein, and more energy foods because they burn more energy pound per pound.[31] And it is also known that semi-starvation leads to loss of sex interest.[32] Another possible reason for the male Arapesh's lack of passionate desire for their mates,[33] is that their wives are betrothed to them at the age of five at which time she moves into his household as one of the family.[34] As recent research in kibbutz communities indicate, when unrelated boys and girls grow up in the same dwelling place amorous relationships are rare in later life, even though such behavior was not looked down upon in the kibbutz communities.[35] The intimacy of rearing the child bride in the same household as her future husband, thus, has a diminishing effect on the husband's desire for her. Furthermore, in a culture setting where males don't receive enough protein, they are less muscular, and thus strength differences disappear. Hence, the males would be less physically aggressive in such a situation.

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:

The existence of matriarchal societies has also been taken as evidence for the cultural nature of sex differences, especially in matters of dominance and leadership. The fact is that matriarchal societies are both unusual (and hence atypical) and also involve an apparent rather than a real dominance by women (Piddington, 1950). The Iroquois is often cited as an example of matriarchal society.... Because many men died young and active in battle, there was reduced survival of wise old men to run the affairs of the tribe at home, and of necessity a great deal of authority was delegated to women. However, the important business of this society was making war, and this remained firmly in the hands of the men (Piddington, 1950). Similar instances can be seen today in various parts of Europe, as in Scottish fishing communities. Here also there is what could be described as a matriarchy and for somewhat the same reason. Each year the men spend several months away from home as they follow the shoals of herring around the coast, and the women remain at home in charge of affairs there. They administer the finances, and frequently order the gear and supplies that are needed for the boats. One might interpret this as a feminine control, but again the central activity of the community is held by the men, who maintain the boats and take them to sea.(p. 206-207)

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:

Women cooked, did the housework, nursed the children, and cared for the children most of the time.[36]

Looking past Mead's rationalizations, men still had as much authority and dominance as in most other societies, considering the nature of these broken societies.[37]

The men worked outside and away from the homes vis a vis the women's work in and around the home.[38]

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:

(a) The division of labor is along traditional lines: men work away from the homes, they do the heavy work, they do the hunting, the war fighting, the fishing; women work close near the homes, care for the children, cook for the family, and so forth.[39]

(b) Men ultimately control or dominate the societies through the most powerful institutions.[40]

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:

The second difficultly is that nowhere in primitive studies do we have determination of chromosomal, gonadal, and hormonal sex, or of somatotype constitutions of the individuals in the society whose sex behavior has been studied. (Mead, in 111, p. 1437, footnote 3; Mead did note a single exception to this)

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 Societies

Versus The Claims of Radical feminists

Various 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 Equality

The 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,

"the decrees of December 17 and 18, 1917, permitted every consort to declare that he wanted his marriage to be canceled. No reasons were to be given to the board... In addition to this, incest, bigamy, and adultery were dropped from the list of criminal offenses. Abortion was explicitly permitted by the decree of November 20, 1920... If one of the consorts was absent, he or she was notified by a postcard....The anti-family policy was crowned by partial success: around 1930, on the average, family ties were substantially weaker than they had been before the revolution. But this partial success was more than balanced by a number of detrimental effects unforeseen by the promoters of Communist experiment. About 1934, these detrimental effects were found to endanger the very stability of the new society and its capacity to stand the test of war. Let us review these effects....

1. ... ominous decrease of the birth rate... in 1934, in the medical institutions of the city of Moscow, 57 thousand children were born, but 154 thousand abortions were performed.... In 1934, in 100 marriages there were 37 divorces..
2. The dissolution of family ties especially of the parent-child relations threatened to produce a wholesale dissolution of community ties, with rapidly increasing juvenile delinquency as the main symptom... crimes in which the sadistic joy of inflicting pain.... Sometimes the schools were besieged by neglected children; other times gangs beat the teachers and attacked women, or regularly fought against one another.

3. Finally, the magnificent slogans of the liberation of sex and the emancipation of women proved to have worked in favor of the strong and reckless, and against the weak and shy. Millions of girls saw their lives ruined by Don Juans in Communist garb, and millions of children had never known parental homes... The unfavorable development had to be stopped and to achieve this the government had no other choice but to re-enforce that pillar of society which is the family....

And actually in 1935, the Soviet government started to prosecute men for rape who 'changed their wives as gloves,' registering a marriage one day and divorce the next....

In the official journal of the Commissariat of Justice these amazing statements may be found:

The State cannot exist without the family. Marriage is a positive value for the Socialist Soviet State only if the partners see in it a lifelong union. So-called free love is a bourgeois invention and has nothing in common with the principles of conduct of a Soviet citizen. Moreover, marriage receives its full value for the State only if there is progeny, and the consorts experience the highest happiness of parenthood."([43] pp. 55ff)

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]


The "Equality" in Israel's Kibbutz

Israel'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 Kibbutz

There 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:

One source of the woman's morale is that many women are dissatisfied with their economic roles....When the vattikim [original settlers] first settled on the land, there was no sexual division of labor. Women, like men, worked in the fields and drove tractors; men, like women, worked in the kitchen and in the laundry. Men and women, it was assumed, were equal and could perform their jobs equally well. It was soon discovered, however, that men and women were not equal. For obvious biological reasons, women could not undertake many of the physical tasks of which men were capable; tractor driving, harvesting, and other heavy labor proved too difficult for them. Moreover, women were compelled at times to take temporary leave from that physical labor of which they were capable. A pregnant women, for example, could not work too long, even in the vegetable garden, and a nursing mother had to work near the Infants House in order to be able to feed her child. Hence, as the Kibbutz grew older and the birth rate increased, more and more women were forced to leave the "productive" branches of the economy and enter its "service" branches. But as they left the "productive" branches, it was necessary that their places be filled, and they were filled by men. The result was that the women found themselves in the same jobs from which they were supposed to have been emancipated -- cooking, cleaning, laundering, teaching, caring for children, etc.

...What has been substituted for the traditional routine of more housekeeping -- and a restricted and narrow kind of housekeeping at that. Instead of cooking and sewing and baking and cleaning and laundering and caring for children, the woman in Kiryat Yedidim cooks or sews or launders or takes care of children for eight hours a day....This new housekeeping is more boring and less rewarding than the traditional type. It is small wonder, then, given this combination of low prestige, difficult working conditions, and monotony, that the chavera [female member of the Kibbutz] has found little happiness in her economic activities.[53]

Traditional Family Tendencies in the Kibbutz

The women of the kibbutz often became proponents of "familistic tendencies." According to Menachem Gerson, the writer of the paper, "Women in the Kibbutz":

...Age-old problems of women persist in the kibbutz. Many women of the founder generation are dissatisfied and disillusioned. Now middle-aged and older, they find that many of their once-meaningful jobs have become too strenuous. Kitchen and dining room, laundry, and tailoring chores are often too hard -- or too boring. Middle-aged women who used to find satisfaction working in early childhood education often have difficulty cooperating with younger, second-generation women, whose style of work with small children is more easygoing.

Older women frequently feel that their kibbutz career has not provided them with a skill, that women are more restricted in their choice of work than are men. Whatever the reasons, kibbutz women are less active than men in fulfilling prestigious tasks, such as the central-managerial ones, and they are less vocal in the weekly general meeting, where many kibbutz problems are decided. Quite a few women in the kibbutz still struggle with traditional feelings of female inferiority or dependence on male esteem. For most women in the kibbutz, then, it is not their work and social activity but their marriage and family that form the center of their lives.

Women have often become proponents of familistic tendencies in the kibbutz. This term...denotes the demand of the family for greater authority in decision-making involving a member of the extended family, a demand frowned upon in kibbutz practice. It also conveys the family's desire to increase contact between parents and children by having the children sleep in the parent's apartment rather than in the children's houses.

...Supporters see the tendencies as a way to win back women who feel estranged from kibbutz life, but I find them regressive from two points of view. [The author then conveys his reasons against "familistic tendencies."]

But the emergence of women's problems in the kibbutz raises nagging questions....If changed social conditions do not bring far-reaching change in feminine characteristics, does that not prove the existence of an essential feminine character, rooted in biological structure? The scientific approach does not permit us to shy away from facts, even if they challenge our beliefs. But acceptance of this traditional image of women would mean renunciation of the equalitarian character of kibbutz society, and would entail a serious setback for women's emancipation movements everywhere. Before drawing conclusions, then, it would be well to examine the historical conditions that have affected kibbutz women. [The author goes on to analyze the kibbutz's stages of development, and then makes some conclusions.]

Thus, with all of the achievements of the kibbutz, two basic problems of women remain: Dissatisfaction in the sphere of work, and comparatively little participation in civic activities and the management of the society.

It would be easy enough to play down the problems I have raised. One could say that such dissatisfactions and tensions are typical of middle-aged women are not interested in civic activity and careers, stop forcing them into a role that fits only your own utopian ideals of kibbutz society -- and all the so-called problems will disappear! Perhaps. But other things will disappear as well, including the hope of active women fighting in the kibbutz and elsewhere for a change in the traditional image of women. And without this hope the kibbutz is doomed. Its very existence, as a socialist cell within a capitalist society, is a miracle. But if its women continue to find life frustrating, it is hard to expect the kibbutz to survive.[54]

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:

"The fact remains that, in general, the kibbutzim suffer from a shortage of women which, of course, affects the kibbutz social structure and, in the most serious cases, even its stability.

There is a good deal of substance to the belief that it is more difficult for a woman than for a man to find complete satisfaction in the kibbutz, unless, of course, her personal relationships within the kibbutz are ideal for her. The belief is growing that the private housewife actually enjoys her almost constant work and worry entailed by her taking care of her house, husband, and children. Sometimes she frankly admits that this is the case."[55]

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 Theory

John 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 Assignment

The 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 Book

Let'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 Cases

In 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:

Set against all this, of course, is still the one case of the American male identical twin, surgically altered soon after birth and raised successfully, all accounts, as his brother's sister. "You have to understand," says Milton Diamond of the University of Hawaii, "that this one case was seen, and is still seen, as being of absolutely crucial theoretical importance. Throughout the 1970's, it was written up in an enormous number of textbooks in psychology and sociology. It was included in virtually every book on sex differences, every book that addressed itself to the roles, in this society, of men and women. ... In 1965, Milton Diamond wrote one of the first scientific papers that attempted to gather together all the existing evidence that might support the idea of the prenatal sexual differentiation of the human brain. And in following years, in a series of other papers, he went on to buttress his case. In 1979, then, he was approached by the British Broadcasting Corporation for his help in a film the producers wanted to make about the American twin. They had already talked with John Money and had secured his assistance -- he was to be the leading voice in the program. And Milton Diamond, because of the view he was know for, was to be a sort of foil.

"Well, the producers went off to do their filming," he says. "And they talked to a number of psychiatrists who'd been first introduced to the child when she was about thirteen, some three years before. It was plain that the child had not made the successful gender switch that has been claimed for her. She was having major problems. She'd refused to talk about any difficulties she'd had in the past, and had been reluctant to talk about sexual matters at all. She had shown considerable ambivalence about her position as a female.... She was feeling that boys had a better and easier life and wanted to be a mechanic. She looked quite masculine. And she was described as unhappy and ambivalent about her status. One psychiatrist said: 'She is having considerable difficulty in adjusting as a female. At the present time she does display certain features which make me suspicious that she will ever make the adjustment as a woman.'"

When the BBC told John Money what they had found, he simply withdrew his support and refused to be interviewed. The program, however, was aired in Britain at the beginning of 1980 without him. And since then Money has failed to address the issue in print, though his version of the case's outcome is still everywhere quoted. ... "But it [cases like the twin boys case] certainly doesn't support," he says, "the idea that gender identity and sexual orientation are dependent entirely on social learning -- which is the one and only idea being persistently peddled in the sort of books I was talking about. This is something that everyone -- scientists included -- ought to face, and face squarely. All the evidence so far gathered points to the fact that the foundation -- the fundamental directionality -- of a man or a woman's future sexual identity is laid down in the masculine or feminine brain before birth... ." (pp. 101-103)

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 Influences

In 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:

(1) Even boys and girls, who were brought up "by mothers who profess verbally to believe in equality and similarity in childrearing," have the rules and norms of traditional sex roles "well internalized." (p. 66-67)

(2) "Because the parents have so completely internalized their views of social sex roles they are unaware that they clearly and systematically influence their sons and daughters through numerous negative and positive sanctions to accept different behavior patterns." (p. 67)

(3) "Children are not led to accept the sex role pattern by force or violence, but usually by more subtle means." (p. 69)

(a) First they are encouraged to do a typically masculine (or feminine) activity and then rewarded for doing so. This social reward makes such activity enjoyable, and so he (or she) continues in such behavior.

(b) Another means is to use negative verbal reinforcement when he or she does something not appropriate to their roles.

(c) All these small "pushes" in "systematically different directions" make the resulted sex roles seem natural.

(4) A major obstacle to sex equality is that "people interpret an attempt to introduce greater similarity to sex roles as an attempt to change human nature." (p. 70)

(5) As socialization of sex roles change and become more equal, what was once thought of as natural, will show itself to be "a product of early indoctrination."

(6) But because the traditional system has gained such a firm hold "parents consciously [among those who believe in traditional sex roles] or unconsciously [among those who do not believe in traditional sex roles] rear their children largely in the same way as they were reared: change is introduced, but slowly and over a span of generations." (p. 77)

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 Behavior

Let'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:

"The results of this inquiry are astonishing and disappointing. In the first place, almost no relationships were found, as indicated by correlations, between childrearing practices and antisocial aggression, in either sex. The same was true for prosocial aggression in boys. But the astonishing part of the results comes with respect to the girls, and the antecedents of their prosocial aggression....We find a clear picture of a significant relationship between high use of masculine child-rearing procedures [physical punishment]

...and high prosocial aggression...The results are exactly the opposite of what one would expect, namely, that feminine (prosocial) aggression would be greater in those girls who were more femininity treated [with withdrawal of love method, or verbal punishment]...."[82]

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 Behavior

From a study of cross-culture papers by Herbert Barry and others, the following is pertinent to our discussion in this chapter:

The childbearing which is biologically assigned to women, and the child care which is socially assigned primarily to them, lead to nurturant behavior and often call for a more continuous responsibility than do the tasks carried out by men. Most of these distinctions in adult role are not inevitable, but the biological differences between the sexes strongly predispose the distinction of role, if made, to be in a uniform direction.

The relevant biological sex differences are conspicuous in adulthood but generally not in childhood. If each generation were left entirely to its own devices, therefore, without even an older generation to copy, sex differences in role would presumably be almost absent in childhood and would have to be developed after puberty at the expense of considerable relearning on the part of one or both sexes. Hence, a pattern of child training which foreshadows adult differences can serve the useful function of minimizing what Benedict[83] termed "discontinuities in cultural conditioning."

The differences in socialization between the sexes in our society, then, are no arbitrary custom of our society, but a very widespread adaptation of culture to the biological substratum of human life.[84]

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:

"In our opinion the fundamental explanation of the allocation of the roles between biological sexes lies in fact that the bearing and early nursing of children establish a strong presumptive primacy of the relation of mother to the small child and this in turn establishes a presumption that the man, who is exempted from these biological functions, should specialize in the alternative instrumental direction."(p. 23)

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 Not

Women 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:

I feel that there is a biological origin of maternal nurturance, especially of small and helpless infants. My reasons are intuitive, unscientific, and unsupported. A few years ago I watched an enormous colony of monkeys chasing one frantic female. The lone figure ran, terrorized, screaming and panicked, away from the chasing throng. In her arms she held the rigid corpse of a dead infant. In all the time I watched, the colony never succeeded in separating her from that body. I have been impressed with the exquisite tenderness older children, especially girls, show toward young children. My own daughters never played with dolls, never rehearsed maternal roles with toys. Their response to young children and animals is nurturant and gentle. I myself had never seen an infant before my eldest was born. Preoccupied with school and work, I had never given much thought to even my own imminent child. My response to my child was immediate, unrehearsed, and unexpected. In a second she was incredibly precious -- to be loved and protected. My husband's response I remember better than my own: "No man will ever be good enough!" The anecdote is glib but my intent is serious. My reaction to my child was not comprehensible in terms of the differential reinforcements of learning theory. This was a primitive, gut-deep response, not amenable to easy verbalization, similar in kind and intensity to that of the monkey who could not give up the body of her dead infant. I have found that this feeling diminishes slowly as my children grow and successfully achieve their independence. But each new birth, each new child, brought forth the same immediate, profound surge of love and protectiveness.[85]

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 Roles

Because 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:

(1) Most people of the world live under conditions of little industrialization.[86]

(2) Population, pollution, economic, and energy problems will keep total or indefinite growth of industrialization from reality.[87]

(3) The economics of most industrial nations are based on growth.[88]

(4) Because of (3) any society that achieves a zero population growth rate must increase production to survive in this competitive world, yet (2) rules this out in the long run. The fact that zero population growth societies have more older retired people than a growing society, helps to rule out increasing production.

(5) Artificial insemination is a method most, if not all, men are psychologically against, if they are fertile. Artificial insemination in mass will never happen, for men rule all powerful institutions. (6) Test-tube babies (grown totally outside the woman's body) are nothing but a fictional notion.[89] There are many problems to be solved before this can ever take place. It may never be possible because of the huge complications science must overcome. But if it were possible, only through some mad leader in some future age could this be brought about in a mass form against mankind's psychological needs. Such babies would have no mothers who would truly care for them since there would not be any true and close biological mothers. Test-tube babies would be deprived babies, and deprived babies are inferior children, and make unstable and inferior adults.[90]

(7) The idea of child care for everyone would not work either, because child care centers are inferior for rearing children.[91] Furthermore, they are expensive, and therefore economically infeasible for many. Also women (97%) mostly care for the children in day care centers, so women would not be freed by this method. They would only directly or indirectly be caring for other children besides their own, but in a much more disadvantageous setting for the children. The taxation for mass child care centers would force many mothers to work and thus their own children would be forced into these inferior institutions. (Of course in some family situations, like ones with too many children and too little money where the mother can't properly care for her children, day care centers may be better, but not as good as a proper mother-child relationship.[92])

(8) Most women like to care for their children; they merely work at jobs to supplement their husband's income, or because they have no husband.[93] And even career women in top jobs feel that the family comes first if a conflict should arise between work and family, as a Political and Economic Planning report called Women in Top Jobs indicated.[94]

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 Children

Radical 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:

(1) birth control and abortion enable women to work for years without interruption because of accidental pregnancy;

(2) fast food restaurants, canned foods, microwave ovens, and frozen foods grant women more freedom from long hours of food preparation;

(3) schools are in effect being used as child care centers by some parents so they can work;

(4) their families can't buy a house unless they work because of the economic reality;

(5) women are entrapped in material desires propagated by the media and the national spirit, and they feel (or their husbands feel) that they must work to support these desires;

(6) women are indoctrinated by radical feminists and other male chauvinists to think they are only valuable when they work outside the home;

(7) some of the tasks that should be theirs, like teaching their children to read and write, have been taken over by the state and therefore taking away some of their challenges and rewards of staying home.


Biology Limits and Causes Behavior

Absolute and Relative Limits

There can be no doubt that biology limits behavior. There are many obvious examples:

(a) Fish are limited to water environments ;

(b) Mankind is limited to oxygen environments;

(c) All living animals except mankind are biologically limited from verbal communication.

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:

(a) There are biological limits to how fast men can run;

(b) There are biological limits to how much men can learn (brain organization and life-spans are factors);

(c) There are biological limits to how well one can perceive his environment (sensitivity of eyes and ears are factors).

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 Behavior

Yet 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 Behavior

In 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 Forces

Although 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?:

(1) It is because parents see the outward physical differences;

(2) because parents see the different behavioral reaction from their children due to their interaction with them;[102]

(3) because they see different energy levels;

(4) because they see different mental and physical abilities;

(5) because parents know their children must eventually fit into and function well in the existing society in order to survive in quality.

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 Explain

As 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:

(1) It can't explain why 99 percent of the world's people live within the hard traditional sex roles, and always have as far as records show.

(2) It can't explain why sex-differentiation is in the same direction everywhere: most males act in traditional masculine ways; most females act in traditional feminine ways.

(3) It can't explain the tomboyish behavior of the female androgenized hermaphrodites.

(4) It can't explain the "hyperfeminine" behavior of those with Turner's syndrome.

(5) It can't explain the sex differences in spatial ability or verbal ability.

(6) It can't explain the differences in the vigor of activity between boys and girls.

(7) It can't explain boys more aggressive, assertive behavior, or their more asocial behavior than girls.

(8) It can't explain girls more affiliational needs than boys.

(9) It can't explain physical differences between the sexes in such aspects as strength, height, maturational rate, and so forth.

(10) It can't explain the differences between the male and female brains. (see Brain Sex & Sex and the Brain, and Chapter 4 of this work)


Conclusions on Sex Role Development

Sex roles are the way they are in this world because:

(1) Biology limits and prepares each sex in different ways which in the long run has produced the hard traditional gender roles we have today. The traditional sex roles cut across all cultures because biology has dictated limits to how far each sex can stray from their innate behavioral tendencies.

(2) Biology limits and causes a bio-cultural pattern of behavior. Since males and females are biologically dissimilar everywhere in the world, their biology limits and causes a universal bio-cultural pattern among mankind.

(3) This bio-cultural pattern is incorporated within the thoughts and institutions of mankind. The incorporation of behavioral patterns within the thoughts and institutions of mankind reinforces and magnifies the behavior patterns.

(4) The parents reared in the universal bio-cultural pattern, teach their children, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously, to behave according to their proper gender roles.

(5) The children accept their assigned gender roles because their sex pertinent innate influences make it easy for them to accept their sex assigned roles.

(6) If parents fail to rear their children in the traditional sex roles, for ideological reasons or from ignorance, then the children are hampered in their development by: (a) their opposing innate biological drives; (b) the opposing cultural pressures from those properly reared.

(7) If a whole society goes against the historical reality of traditional sex roles, then that society helps to destroy itself because: (a) the society drives each individual against their innate biological drives (which weakens the individual); and (b) the society because of (a) falls behind other societies in productivity since too much energy is used to promote their ideology and to fight against their biology.

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

[1] is 109 of the Bibliography list

[2] 95

[3] 36; 85

[4] 207

[5] 49

[6] 49

[7] 86

[8] p. 1451 in 111

[9] p. 260 in 35

[10] p. 261 in 35

[11] p. 260 in 35

[12] p. 259 in 35

[13] pp. 259-260 in 35

[14] p. 16 in 109

[15] p. 293 in 109

[16] 184

[17] p. 53 in 110

[18] p. 389, 392, 395 in 110

[19] p. 246ff in 110

[20] p. 377 in 110

[21] p. 377 in 110

[22] p. 387 in 110

[23] p. 395 in 110

[24] pp. 389-395 in 110

[25] 20

[26] pp. 321-322 in 138

[27] pp. 395-396 in 110

[28] 190

[29] p. 392 in 110

[30] p. 1438 in 111

[31] pp. 462-463 in 4

pp. 158-160 in 151

[32] 91

[33] p. 111 in 109

p. 1441 in 111

[34] p. 1439 in 111

[35] 160 & 161

[36] pp. 54-55, 114-115, 170, 175,

182, 186-191, 226-227, 234 in 109

p. 1439 in 111

[37] pp. 49, 132-133, 173

183-184, 246 in 109

pp. 322-323 in 138

pp. 636-637 in 142

[38] pp. 389, 392, 396 in 110

pp. 37-39, 54, 168, 180,

  227, 237 in 109

[39] pp. 176ff in 38

[40] pp. 188ff in 38

[41] pp 252-255 in 109

[42] p. 1437, footnote in 111

[43] in 189

[44] p. 220 in 54

[45] pp. 225ff in 54

[46] pp. 221, 223 in 54;

pp. 133ff in 168

[47] pp. 227ff in 54

chapter 5 in 168

[48] pp. 130, 134, 72 in 168

p. 55 in 11

[49] 172

[50] p. 9 in 98

[51] pp. 128-129 in 98

[52] pp. 178 ff in 38; 64

pp. 80ff in 22; 98

[53] pp. 221-230 in 173

[54] pp. 567, 568, 572 in 64

[55] p. 82 in 22

[56] 22; 64; 89; 98; 173

[57] 76; see 122

[58] 86

[59] 45

[60] 76

[61] p. 5 in 120

[62] 122

[63] p. 1-2, chap. 6 in 120

[64] chapter 6 in 120

[65] p. 114 in 120

[66] 75

[67] 76

[68] 120

[69] 119; pp. 111-114 in 120

[70] 120; 76

[71] 75

[72] 44

[73] 24

[74] 45

[75] 120

[76] 30

[77] 109

[78] 100

[79] p. 493 in 196

[80] 112

[81] 188

[82] p. 145 in 156

[83] 19

[84] pp. 206-207 in 14

[85] pp. 33-34 in 9

[86] chapter 35 in 192

[87] pp. 100-101 in 192; 79

[88] pp. 100-101, 339-341 in 192;


[89] 186; 203

[90] 210

[91] 210; 97

[92] 210

[93] p. 276 in 90

[94] 55

[95] 135 see latest almanac

[96] (Modesto Bee, Aug 25, 1988)

[97] 120; 151; 191; 7; etc.

[98] 131

[99] pp. 323ff in 133

[100] pp. 108ff in 86; 61; 152; 120; etc.

[101] pp. 292ff in 18

[102] 157

[103] 124

[104] 120; 212

 Return to Sex on the Net's HomePage

A WoRD Creation