I have recently noticed an article that several people have been tagging on del.icio.us under the general tag "gender." The article is Dr. Roy Baumeister's recent address to the APA, interestingly titled: Is There Anything Good About Men? I'm surprised that I haven't seen this appear on digg, but I did notice that the NYT blog has picked it up here.
Essentially, Baumeister explores how cultural systems shape action with respect to gender. I found his thesis fascinating and enjoyed reading the whole article.
What I found particularly interesting about his argument is that he rejects contemporary theories of gender (overwhelmingly shaped by feminist ideology) in favor of a complementary view of gender:
Hence this is not about the “battle of the sexes,” and in fact I think one unfortunate legacy of feminism has been the idea that men and women are basically enemies. I shall suggest, instead, that most often men and women have been partners, supporting each other rather than exploiting or manipulating each other.
[...]
Let’s return to the three main theories we’ve had about gender: Men are better, no difference, and women are better. What’s missing from that list? Different but equal. Let me propose that as a rival theory that deserves to be considered. I think it’s actually the most plausible one. Natural selection will preserve innate differences between men and women as long as the different traits are beneficial in different circumstances or for different tasks.
Ultimately, Baumeister argues that gender inequality cannot be adequately explained by feminist theories of patriarchy (which he rejects as conspiracy theories). Instead, he suggests that the proliferation of gender inequality can be explained by the way in which men's larger, more shallow social networks have progressed culturally while women have concentrated on close relationships that have enabled the species to survive.
I have re-posted his conclusion below and would commend the whole article to you.
Technorati Tags: gender
Recent Comments