The slippery slope of sexual determinism

I’m a conservative—of the old-fashioned, centrist variety. This is why the hard right scares me: The hard right helps elect Democrats.

In a previous essay, I discussed the difference between a conservative and a right-winger. This post provoked a lively debate with blogger Vox Day.

Vox took issue with my earlier statement that "Conservatism is for men as well as women." He is also on record as being opposed to female suffrage.

Now, before you ask, “Why bother to refute such ideas?” let me inform you that Vox Day is not some babbling nut job. On the contrary, Vox is highly articulate, and the author of a number of successful books.

However, Vox has been seduced by the doctrine of sexual determinism—and the notion that one’s sex determines one’s ability to function in the political realm.

Like most false ideologies, this one, too, is based on an initial premise of truth that is over-extrapolated to a false conclusion.

Vox writes:

“…it is an observable, provable, statistical, and scientific fact that the two sexes possess different brain structures, different thought patterns, different hormonal balances, and different time-preferences…”

This much I agree with. Men and women do possess inherent differences—especially in the realms of social and mating behavior. (For a good overview of this topic, I recommend the book, The Red Queen by Matt Ridley.)

And these initial facts can be used for any number of ends—if one is willing to freely extrapolate. A few years ago management guru Tom Peters attempted to revive his flagging career by going full-bore feminist. He published a series of slides on the Internet entitled “Women Rule.” (They are still out there; and can be easily found by Googling.) Peters basically argued the gender-determinist case from the opposite side, claiming that women are “born to lead” in the twenty-first century corporate environment because they are women, and therefore inherently more collaborative, more empathetic, and less confrontational.

Tom Peters 2002 "Women Rule" slide

Another slide from Tom Peters

The case that women—on average—are more collaborative, empathetic, and less confrontational (openly, at least) can be made from any number of books on evolutionary biology. In 1995, even Newt Gingrich speculated that “on an Aegis class cruiser managing the computer controls for 12 ships and their rockets, a female again may be dramatically better than a male who gets very, very frustrated sitting in a chair all the time because males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes."

Gingrich’s biological argument is ineloquently stated but roughly accurate. The basic idea that men and women have inherently different strengths (and weaknesses) is nothing new, and generally accepted by all but the most hardcore leftwing ideologues—who will insist that men and women are 100% the same, in regard to everything.

Vox is Tom Peters in reverse. The mistake that Vox commits is to interpret female differences as weaknesses (rather than the strengths that Peters claims them to be). Vox asserts that:

“…women would not be permitted to vote in any society that wishes to sustain itself…”

According to Vox, the proof is in the pudding. The Western democracies introduced female suffrage around one hundred years ago. And in the intervening years, most have adopted some form of the welfare state.

Women—given their predisposition toward cooperative, group-directed activity—may be more susceptible to the arguments of Democrats, socialists, and similar collectivists. Perhaps. (Of course, Tom Peters asserts—relying on the same data—that these traits make women better corporate managers!)

How can deterministic arguments be turned against men? Men are by nature more aggressive, and more prone to violence and antisocial behavior. Most violent crimes are committed by men; and almost all rapes are committed by men. Compared to women, men are far more inclined toward violent, sexually aggressive, and antisocial behavior.

The critical question here is: Does sex (since Vox objects to the more contemporary term “gender”) equal destiny?

When it comes to sexual preferences and mating strategies, the answer is obviously yes, that sex does equal destiny. As a heterosexual man, I respond to an entirely different range of stimuli than a heterosexual woman does. (For the sake of brevity, I won’t elaborate here; but these are detailed in The Red Queen and many other books on evolutionary biology.)

But what about my ability to “listen and ask questions in a meeting” (one of the tasks that Peters asserts women do better)? The farther we get from the sexual, the less sex-related differences determine our behaviors. Having spent 20+ years in the corporate world, I’ve noticed no sex-related differences between men and women when it comes to listening and asking questions in meetings. Some men are skillful listeners and talkers, some women aren’t, and vice versa.  

Human beings are hormones and gonads; but we aren’t only hormones and gonads. The farther one gets from the purely sexual (or the physical, as in athletics) the less important gender differences become. Men and women both have the ability to reason, to rise above their innate weaknesses.  

As a man, there is the genetic imprint of a caveman somewhere within me. This is true of all men—even John Scalzi. (Okay—maybe John Scalzi is an exception.) But this does not mean that I—as an individual man—am destined to become a rapist, a murderer, or an antisocial recluse. It means that I have the potential for masculine aggression. In this case, sex does not equal destiny—though it may equal predisposition.

Likewise, the female capacity for empathy may make them marginally more susceptible to leftwing political arguments. (We men like to be loners and hunt giraffes, after all.)

However, history proves that sex does not equal destiny at the voting booth. In the close election of 1976, the gender gap was nil. Reagan’s “gender gap” was in the single-digit range in 1980. In 1988, George H.W. Bush actually captured a majority of the female vote.

So much for the argument that women are destined to vote for the Democrats.

Why then, has the political gender gap become so pronounced in recent election cycles? It might be because women (along with other groups) are voting according to their biology, whereas they mysteriously weren’t in the 1970s and 1980s.

Or it might be that the Republican Party has abandoned the sensible, centrist stance of the Reagan/Bush 41 years, having been hijacked by a small but vocal hard right. Consider Todd Akin’s remarks on rape, for example—which probably cost the GOP more votes in 2012 than all the Obama campaign workers in the state of Missouri.

*       *      *

But the GOP used to be different: I quote from Ronald Reagan’s 1981 inaugural address:

“We hear much of special interest groups. Our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and our factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we are sick—professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truckdrivers. They are, in short, "We the people," this breed called Americans. 

         Well, this administration's objective will be a healthy, vigorous, growing economy that provides equal opportunity for all Americans, with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination.”

The Gipper knew better....

And yes, that quote does send chills up my spine. Reagan’s message was clear: Favoritism toward none, and discrimination toward none. It is no accident that the Republican Party of the Reagan era was far more diverse than the GOP of today. That was the era of conservatism for everyone—exactly what the Republican Party needs today.

Vox Day’s attacks on female suffrage are more than sexist or chauvinistic rants. Vox does have an argument: but it is an argument based on a false generalization.



Note: Comments are welcome, but please read My very simple and egalitarian comments policy before posting. Thanks!