Comment (15)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
Technorati
diggBroken heart risk management
Denying the differences between men and women is an interesting academic pastime, but in practice the cost of being wrong can be very high.
Feminism has never been a coherent ideology but it has broadly come to mean that men and women are identical, except that women are better. This was the starting point for a speech I gave recently at the Case Western Reserve Law School in Cleveland, as the guest of the Federalist Society. Under the heading, "Humane Alternatives to Feminism", I argued that we would be better off embracing the reality of gender differences, rather than a) denying them, b) suppressing them and c) feigning surprise when they emerge anyhow.
One of my questioners asked the fairly standard feminist question of whether these gender differences I cited weren't simply all products of cultural conditioning. I asked her what she would be willing to accept as evidence that some gender differences are not cultural artifacts, but actual differences. She didn't have an answer.
If she clings to the theory that all the differences between herself and her boyfriend are simply culturally conditioned, she will tell herself that there is something wrong with her and her reaction. She might try to steel herself against feeling attached. She may try to anesthetize herself, so she feels less altogether. In extreme cases, she may turn to drugs or alcohol to medicate the pain. Potentially, pretty serious costs.
I got to thinking afterwards: answers based on evidence never seem to be convincing to someone who is already committed to radical androgyny. Maybe a better approach is the risk management approach. My feminist questioner and I each have a hypothesis. We'd like to test our hypotheses against each other, and manage the risk associated with being mistaken.
Feminists have a theory that cultural conditioning accounts for all differences in men and women's sexual responses. My theory is that women respond differently to sex than men do: specifically, women attach to their sex partners. Let's pretend we have no reason to favor one hypothesis over the other. What is the risk to the individual if she adopts one of these hypotheses, but turns out to be wrong?
If she adopts my hypothesis, she will expect to respond differently to sex than the men in her life. She will take her choice of partner seriously. She will decline to have sex with somebody that would be a disaster for her to become attached to.
If this hypothesis turns out to be mistaken, she will find out for herself that she didn't actually connect with her sex partner. She bears the cost of giving up some potentially fun sexual encounters that would not have been too harmful. A cost, to be sure, but a relatively modest cost.
But what if she adopts the alternative hypothesis and it turns out to be false? She chooses her sex partners on the assumption that she will not attach to her sex partner any more or any differently than he would attach to her. She finds herself sitting by the phone, wondering whether the guy she slept with the night before will call her again. She finds herself wondering whether the encounter meant as much to him as it meant to her. The cost of her mistake? A broken heart.
If she clings to the theory that all the differences between herself and her boyfriend are simply culturally conditioned, she will tell herself that there is something wrong with her and her reaction. She might try to steel herself against feeling attached. She may try to anesthetize herself, so she feels less altogether. In extreme cases, she may turn to drugs or alcohol to medicate the pain. Potentially, pretty serious costs.
My hypothesis can account for the data (1) which shows having multiple casual sexual partners puts teenage girls at risk for depression. Their bodies want to attach to their partners. If the relationship doesn't work out, the theory that men and women are identical basically forces her to suppress the evidence of her own feelings.
From the risk management point of view, it makes more sense to adopt the more modest theory that it is at least possible, that men and women respond differently to sex. The risks associated with being mistaken are much more manageable than the risks associated with believing that all gender differences are culturally conditioned.
And yet, we have had a generation or more of policies dictated by the feminist-inspired principle. Women are bombarded with this theory, from provocative clothes for little girls, to "comprehensive sex ed" programs in high school, down to sex-saturated freshmen orientation week on many college campuses. Unlimited sex is an entitlement. Women are entitled to have as much uncommitted sex as men. And women should expect to feel the same way about it as men do.
It is time to put an end to this systematic pattern of lying. Even if I am completely mistaken (which I'm not), it is safer to act as if women and men react differently to sex.
Jennifer Roback Morse, PhD, is the author of Smart Sex: Finding Life-long Love in a Hook-up World.
Notes
1. Halfors, Denise, D. Martha W. Waller, Daniel Bauer, Carol Ford and Carolyn Halpern, (2005) "Which Comes First in Adolescence- Sex and Drugs or Depression?" American Journal of Preventive Medicine 29(3) 163-170.
To say “women need to be loved and men need to be respected, ... are two ways of saying the same thing” seems to miss the fundamental point. We are different in every way except in dignity.
But just as our bodies differ so too do our emotional needs & responses and our resulting contributions to a healthy society. I’m a guy and admit women are superior beings, why would anyone want to change that?
To hypothesize about the way women feel differently towards sexual partners does not prove that women are different. Paul says that having sex with someone makes them (both of them, not just women) one flesh. That is, it attaches them to each other. It is true that men and women are created differently: women need to be loved, and men need to be respected, but these are two ways of saying the same thing. There is a mutual love and respect in marriage. Men are just as emotional as women and need love. Sometimes I wonder if I am only physically different than a man.
I do not argue either for stormy or calm marriages. Having been married for over 30 years myself and having observed the happy and unhappy marriages of my friends, I would rather not generalise on something so infinitely varied.
Will check out your other post later.
Francis Phillips said: “As to dominant roles: yes, fallen human nature is weak; men and women have to constantly strive to overcome ‘the will to power’ in their relations with each other.”
I agree that the desire to dominate others is is a recurring human failing. I would argue that the ‘calmest marriages’ are not between equals. I can say, from personal experience, that a marriage between two strong willed people is stormier; but more interesting and, ultimately, more rewarding.
On the subject of abortion, I have said elsewhere on this site that I believe every abortion to be a tragedy. I don’t believe that eliminating the possibility of pregnancy for a rape victim is, in any way, immoral.
See my post under “A Sad Farewell To Amnesty”
I assure you there was no attempt to soften something so barbaric (I am a woman, after all). I simply used the old, now seemingly outmoded, expression; I shall not do so in future. Thank you for pointing this out to me.
Francis, Why did you change ‘female genital mutilation’ to ‘female circumcision’? You must realize that the male equivalent to the procedure is castration? Why soften the impact of something so barbaric?
To want to be careful in how we define’equality’ does not mean supporting inequality. The injustices towards women described by DP are always wrong - but a wholly secular society, whily rightly outlawing e.g.female circumcision, cannot give women true justice because it does not accept that women, though equal to men in dignity, are different from them. Secular governments endorse abortion as a woman’s ‘right’: this is a deep injustice towards women (and their unborn children), as post abortion stress disorder demonstrates.
As to dominant roles: yes, fallen human nature is weak; men and women have to constantly strive to overcome ‘the will to power’ in their relations with each other.
Hi Everyone,
Thanks for the thoughtful posts. TLDTS: you are correct that it is unfortunate to generalize about feminists. But there are so many variants that there is no chance of doing justice to all the nuances. I am just trying to deal with the form of feminism that is “out there” in the culture, which most ordinary, non-academic people have to confront.
And yes to those who call attention to the equality problem. Wanting equality before the law, recognizing that we are equal in the sight of God, these are quite different notions of equality than the “sameness” or “equivalence” doctrines that have become so prevalent, and the source of so much mischief.
Thanks again, everyone for taking the time to write thoughtfully about my work.
Dr J
Francis Phillips said: “‘Equal’, in the modern secular sense, means ‘equal in the workplace, equal in the kitchen, equal in drinking habits’etc - indeed, however you like to define it. It is thus easy to see how this latter ‘equality’ might lead to much chaos and unhappiness.”
It’s easier to see how inequality causes ‘chaos and unhappiness’. Male dominance is a lousy idea. The fear of losing this privilege has caused the Witch Hunts, female genital mutilation, and the rise of modern fundamentalism. The berka has no other purpose but to deprive women of there individuality. The list of offenses is endless. Only secular government protects women from such abuse. Any time two people make a life together one of them will take the dominant role. In the modern world physical strength is the least important factor. The backlash against this reality is the impetus for the longing for ‘traditional’ values.
‘Equal’, in the Biblical sense, means ‘equal in dignity before God’.
‘Equal’, in the modern secular sense, means ‘equal in the workplace, equal in the kitchen, equal in drinking habits’etc - indeed, however you like to define it. It is thus easy to see how this latter ‘equality’ might lead to much chaos and unhappiness.
Telesforo Liangco,
Your post was eloquent but it stopped short of saying that men and women are equal. Could you be more specific?
Male and female were meant to be different. If we trace it back to the Biblical creation story, man was made from mud, the woman from a rib. The reason is woman was meant to be loved, not taken on the head lest she dominate him nor at the feet for her to be trampled upon but as a help mate, a partner in everything that he does.
We react differently and behave differently. And that makes life for both more exciting and challenging.
Made from different molds yet meant to be together.
If the thesis of this article is wrong, why is it that so many 30-something, unattached and lonely women identify so strongly with Bridget Jones and her emotional yearnings - so much so, indeed, that they are sometimes called the ‘Bridget Jones generation’?
I don’t believe most people who call themselves feminists believe there is no difference between men and women. There is a difference between wanting equal right and believing that men and women are the same. The argument is contrived. The truth is, just because women and men are different doesn’t mean that women should embrace the subservient role. That, I think, is what Ms Morse is trying to imply.
Wow. Well, thanks for just generalizing feminists… like we need more generalization in the world.
I -do- think that men are intrinsically different than women. To pretend otherwise will only lead to lots of problems for everyone involved in the deception; and I, too, find it puzzling as to why supposedly intelligent people fail to see this.
Generalization aside, however, you raise about a million good points. Please continue to spread the truth!
Page 1 of 1 :