Clinton St. Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 4 | Winter 1984 (Seattle) /// Issue 2 of 24 /// Master# 50 of 73

body protein before taking her turn? Pigeons of both sexes secrete milk to feed their nestlings. The male gorilla runs an establishment similar to that of a sea lion bull while some apes are as monogamous as the whooping crane. The female Belding’s ground squirrel participates in a social order from which all males are excluded. Feminine cooperation stretches the average life of the female ground squirrel to 13 years, while males live an average of two years. If humans must learn about their own normal sexual behavior pattern from animals, they will certainly receive mixed signals. Every possible variation occurs above the most primitive of animals. ’David Kabat History has demonstrated that we must be wary when anthropologists strive to interpret science to the lay public in an emphatic manner. Such an approach formerly gave us the myths of the superior “white” and of the “great Aryan super race.” Consider just a few of the sexist errors in Konner’s article: (1) Konner implies that only female scientists have made important contributions to this field. Totally false. (2) He asserts strongly and repeatedly that these female scientists were forced to reach their conclusions against their innate female-oriented wishes or prejudices. He has no evidence for this whatsoever, thereby maligning the humanity and objectivity of these scientists who happen to be women. (3) Konner asserts that Margaret Mead is the originator of the field in which these female scientists work and that they follow her footsteps. This is as wrong and demeaning as would be the suggestion that all black scientists walk in the footsteps of George Washington Carver. (4) Konner implies that because a select subset of female scientists agree with him, we should conclude that the evidence is very strong and that we should be convinced. Actually, there is no unanimity in this field and one could just as easily list brilliant female scientists who disagree with We do know that a loving consistent environment especially in childhood can ameliorate aggressive tendencies in all humans. Konnor. In fact, an equal number of fallacies and misconceptions characterize Konner’s interpretation of scientific issues. But what about the real subject of concern to us all — the question of innate sexual differences in aggressiveness and in brain function? This is a difficult subject about which we know very little. Current evidence suggests that the Y-chromosome of males has a major, controlling effect on differentiation of the two sexes. Furthermore, this Y-chromosome influence affects virtually every tissue of the body. Some of these “secondary sexual charactistics” are obvious, whereas others are more subtle and can only be detected by analyzing the molecular constituents of the cells. We already know that these differences occur in the brain as well as in other tissues. But we do not really have the foggiest idea what these differences might contribute to complex behaviors such as “aggressiveness” and “egoism.” However, we do know that a loving consistent environment especially in childhood can ameliorate aggressive tendencies In all humans. Consequently, it seems rational and humane to try to ensure that all children have access to such nurturing love. The alternative approach sugThe Writers Melvin Konner is Chairman of the Department of Anthropology at Emory University. His specialty is biological anthropology. Ursula K. LeGuin is a Portland writer of science fiction, fantasy and poetry. Her many award-winning works, which include The Left Hand of Darkness, Malafrena and The Dispossessed, make her pre-eminent in her field. Elaine Spencer is Associate Professor of Chemistry at Portland State University. David Kabat is Professor of Biochemistry at the Oregon Health Sciences University. His recent research is in the role of steroid hormones in control of breast cancer. Johanna Brenner and Janice Haaken are, respectively, Associate Professors of Sociology/Women’s Studies and Psychology at Portland State University. Maureen McGuire is Director of the Oregon Program for Sexual Health at the Oregon Health Sciences University. Katherine Dunn is a Portland writer whose novels, Attic and Truck are available from Avon and Bantam. Her column (with Peter Fritsch) on boxing appears regularly in Willamette Week. gested by Konner has had a history of failure: to regulate human opportunity based on alleged innate differences between different people. Let us not once again follow such a dismal path. Johanna Brenner with Janice Haaken Hiding behind the skirts of several women scientists and waving an invitation to the corridors of power, Konner appears to make us an offer we can’t refuse: admit that men are naturally more aggressive than women and we will let the women rule the world. Surely, those of us women who continue to be skeptical about claims of “natural” differences between the sexes in personality attributes or intellectual capacities (“right brain/left brain” is the latest form of that one) are terrible ingrates. However, we must refuse Konner’s invitation to jump on Mother Nature’s bandwagon. In our culture, where adult male and female roles differ markedly in the degree of expected aggression and dependencies, socialization into sex-typed behavior begins with the baby’s first cry. Moss’s study of mother-infant interaction, for example, found that mothers handle their boy and girl infants differently even at three weeks old. Goldberg found that mothers touch, talk to, and hold their infant girls more than their infant boys. By thirteen months, girl children had learned to reciprocate their mothers’ attention: they talked to and touched their mothers more often often than boy children did. In our society, the behaviors expected of each sex are highly dichotomized. But Konner’s contention that some differences are universal — that men are always more violent and aggressive than women — is not as firmly supported by evidence as he implies. Many anthropologists continue to argue that in at least some human groups war and violence are not prevalent in social life — the African Mbuti and the Montagnais- Naskapi of Labrador, for example — and that in these groups neither men or women are particularly aggressive. On the other hand, in some social contexts, women can be every bit as aggressive as the men of their group. The Iroquois women took a major part in the torture of war captives. While not trained as warriors in most societies, women are capable of very aggressive behavior when defending their children. Clearly, our biological natures create both needs and potentials. Hunger is a physiological state, as is sexual arousal, fear, anger, etc. But how we go about meeting those needs — how we sate our hunger, direct our anger, or satisfy a sexual urge — has shown a wonderfully varied range as we look at human societies cross-culturally and historically. Indeed, what is special about human nature is that the limits of what we do, what we need, and what Our supposed natural propensity for emotionality and nurturance is much more likely to be used to deny women a place in public life than to hand over to us the reigns of power. we demand of our world do change as we change our social relationships to each other and to the natural environment. The evidence seems to indicate not that men and women are doomed to separate emotional existences, but just the opposite: that all human beings have shared potentials that may or may not be developed by the social context in which they grow up and live. The problem with Konner’s point of view is that if focuses on differences between men and women which are minor, compared to both men’s and women’s capacities for nurturance and aggression. Konner’s view, while apparently pro-woman, is not a liberating one. Our supposed natural propensity for emotionality and nurturance is much more likely to be used to deny women a place in public life than to hand over to us the reigns of power. But more destructively, Konner’s view assumes that aggression, including its expression in economic, political, or military conflict, is the result of individual characteristics of the people in power. He does not see that aggressive and destructive behavior is often built-in to social positions, required by anyone, male or female, who holds them. Would a woman president of Georgia Pacific, for example, be less constrained than its previous chief executives to put company profitability ahead of natural preservation? Is Margaret Thatcher, wife and mother, some kind of genetic anomaly? Is Indira Ghandi, who regularly jails her political opponents, “masculinized” hormonally? The solution to our problem may not lie in putting the average woman into government because we are more gentle, but in encouraging women to be far more aggressive in fighting for the fundamental changes necessary to create a more just and humane world. Maureen McGuire Ihave no argument that sex hormones affect the developing brain pathways of the human fetus. My concern is that Konner implies that this affects many things although he never commits to what those many things are. His argument smacks of sociobiology which would like to explain the inequities between men and women in our society and others on the basis of biology. Men are more aggressive, more powerful, because of their range in testosterone, while women are more nurturant and therefore should stay home and take care of men and babies. The problem with sociobiology is not that there are no biological or hormonal differences between men and women, but that these differences are not sufficient to explain the status of men and women across cultures. Margaret Mead said once, quite aptly, that in all the cultures she studies, the tasks that were assigned to women were considered less important. I recall specifically her example, which was that she actually found a society in which men sat in the corner of their little houses and carved wooden dolls while women farmed, gathered and provided sustenance, as well as doing the building. In that society, too, men’s jobs were considered more important. Men were more powerful. This example had little to do with the range in testosterone. However, it has a lot to do with the lack of power women have across cultures. Until recently in our country, it had been suggested that a physician should be a male because of the kind of work, the trauma in being exposed to death and involved with blood ... and in the fact, “that patients wanted father figures not mother figures when ill.” There are some who may still say this. When I visited Russia, I was thrilled to find that the majority of physicians were women. That is, until I found that in Russian society, doctors, unlike in our society, don’t Generic Boom Chuck made by The Incredible John Davis Clinton St. Quarterly 25

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz