Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:57, 10 June 2009

Why Men Rule is a book by Steven Goldberg, published by the Open Court Publishing Company in 1993. The hypothesis proposed by Goldberg is that social institutions like patriarchy, that are characterised by male dominance, can be explained by the biological differences between men and women. Thus, in his view, male dominance is quite possibly inevitable.

Why Men Rule is Goldberg's second book on this subject. The library of congress cataloging-in-publication data consider it a revised edition of the first book.

Overview

Goldberg divides his presentation into four sections. The first section, "The Inevitability of Patriarchy", is the main section and presents a case for the theory of male dominance. The second section, "Objections and Implications", claims to considers all the objections actually raised against this theory. It also considers the implications that would follow were the theory true. The third section, "Cognitive Differentiation", considers the area of cognitive differences between men and women. These lie between basic biological differences and the high-order social differences. Less information is available regarding this area, but its broad correspondence with the others is considered. Finally, the fourth section, "The Meaning of Male and Female", provides more philosophical reflection on the meaning and significance of "male" and "female".

There is a lengthy appendix, with detailed bibliographic data regarding ethnographic reports of societies that have been claimed by some to be matriarchal. In every case the ethnographers record sufficient information to establish Goldberg's point—that these societies are actually patriarchal, not matriarchal. For a similar list at Misplaced Pages see the list of cultures that have been claimed to be matriarchal.

Contents

Part I: The Inevitability of Patriarchy

In this section Goldberg presents his main case. It has three steps.

Step One. The first thing Goldberg considers is the historical evidence of all known human societies, as observed (or written about) at different times and places, by people of both sexes and various ideological persuasions and cultural backgrounds. Goldberg notes that the consensus view of professional anthropologists is that all two thousand or so known cultures demonstrate features of male dominance.

Goldberg notes the following.

1. There may have been cultures before recorded history without male dominance; but we just can't know.
2. There may be cultures in the future without male dominance; but again we just don't know.
3. Nearly all societies have dominant women from time to time; but they are exceptional.

He also notes that several societies have been put forward as demonstrating either female dominance or no dominance at all; the reader is referred to the appendix (mentioned above).

Step Two. The second thing Goldberg considers is the results of medical research into human hermaphroditism, and the biological research into sexually dimorphic behaviour of animals. In both cases, there is a clear correlation between hormones and social behaviour.

Step Three. Goldberg's final step is to explain observed male dominance, as social reinforcement of patterns of behaviour prompted by biological predispositions, some of which are mediated by hormones.

Part II: Objections and Implications

In this section Goldberg considers criticism of his theory as originally published.

Firstly he clarifies precisely what the evidence is, that needs some kind of explanation (this is taken from Part I above).

• He claims that anthropology shows all known societies to express male dominance.
• Hermaphroditism shows traditional gender differences in behaviour are correlated with biological differences.
• Sexual dimorphism in the behaviour of social mammals is influenced by biology.

Then he provides two alternative (biological, but not hormonal) explanations offered by his critics.

1. Men are physically larger and stronger.
2. Women have been too busy as mothers to compete.

He considers these inadequate because:

1. Small and physically weak men are frequently found in dominant positions (certainly more often than women).
2. It is only recent, wealthy societies that have freed some women to full-time motherhood. Most women have always been workers.

He notes that these alternatives are less common among his critics than a "technological" argument, which claims male dominance is no longer necessary for the good of society. Social issues that previously needed brute strength for resolution will be solved by more efficient methods in future.

To this Goldberg answers that we have to "wait and see." The historical evidence, in his opinion, suggests men have taken on the responsible roles in hierarchies due to psychological preference, rather than due to practical necessity. Even were necessity no longer an issue, psychological preference will remain; therefore, so will male dominance.

This section is extensive and very thorough. One of the subsections is titled "Twenty-five Questions to Ask about Any Criticism of the Theory of Male Dominance". What has been summarized so far is sufficient to give an accurate impression of the nature of the section.

Part III: Cognitive Differentiation

In this section Goldberg considers what he considers to be the most interesting, but least understood aspect of male-female differences.

Goldberg makes it clear that even were there no cognitive differences between men and women, it would not change his view that men dominate socially, and they do so for biological reasons. However, Goldberg notes there is evidence to suggest that there are significant differences in male and female ways of thinking. So, if research uncovers more of these differences, and demonstrates the influence of biological factors more convincingly, these could well provide additional evidence for or against the theory that there is a biological foundation of male dominance. In fact, there have been such findings since Goldberg wrote (see the literature below).

Part IV: The Meaning of Male and Female

In this section Goldberg moves from scientific sociology to philosophical sociology – from facts to significance. In other words, if the theory is true, what use is it?

Goldberg suggests that occupational roles find their significance in a wider set of values. In other words, changing occupational roles do not challenge society as deeply as changing values. However, in this section, Goldberg does not argue that American society has changed its values regarding gender differences, rather he argues that it has abandoned its values. This produces, in Goldberg's opinion, an unsatisfying and unsustainable social structure.

Goldberg concludes the section and the book dramatically. He notes that patriarchy is not simply a result of male choice, but of female choice as well. The social roles that are more important to men are also less important to women. He expresses the opinion that men value what women contribute, especially when confronted with the traumas arising from conflicts associated with their own pursuit of dominance and status. Goldberg suggests that this value men see in the contribution of women is evident in what he argues is the universality of the protection they offer to women and children. His dramatic conclusion presents a woman's choice as a dilemma, she can accept respect and protection from men, or choose to join men in their battles for dominance. Goldberg applies his theory to this, suggesting that his theoretical higher male motivation for dominance will leave women who choose the second option at a disadvantage.

I believe the evidence indicates that women follow their own psychophysiological imperatives and that they would not choose to compete for the goals that men devote their lives to attaining. Women have more important things to do. Men are aware of this and that is why in this and every other society they look to women for gentleness, kindness, and love, for refuge from a world of pain and force, for safety from their own excesses. In every society a basic male motivation is the feeling that the women and children must be protected. But a woman cannot have it both ways: if she wishes to sacrifice all this, what she will get in return is the right to meet men on male terms. She will lose.

Reviews

• 'The Politics of Gender'.

• The October–November edition of Sociology 10 (1989) was devoted to the previous version of Why Men Rule (The Inevitability of Patriarchy). It contains 2 essays by Goldberg and 7 from critics.

See also

• When Wish Replaces Thought
• Fads and Fallacies in the Social Sciences

References

1. "It is possible to respond to all criticism with a generic list of fallacies and errors and the questions that expose them." Why Men Rule (Open Court: 1993), p. 155.
2. Steven Goldberg, Why Men Rule, (Chicago: Open Court, 1993).
3. Ibid., pp. 13 ff.
4. "The consensus among modern anthropologists and sociologists is that a strictly matriarchal society never existed". "Patriarchy", Encyclopædia Britannica, 2008.
5. Ibid., pp. 77 ff.
6. Ibid., pp. 103 ff.
7. Ibid., p. 121.
8. Ibid., p. 125.
9. Ibid., pp. 125 f.
10. Ibid., pp. 127 ff.
11. Ibid., p. 197.
12. Ibid., pp. 198 ff.
13. Ibid., p. 223.
14. Ibid., p. 224.
15. Ibid., p. 229.

Further reading

• Baron-Cohen, Simon. The Essential Difference: The Truth about the Male and Female Brain. New York: Perseus Books Group, 2003.
• Brown, Donald. Human Universals. New York: McGraw Hill, 1991.
• Brizendine, Louann. The Female Brain. New York: Morgan Road Books, 2006.
• Mead, Margaret. 'Do We Undervalue Full-Time Wives'. Redbook 122 (1963).
• Moir, Anne and David Jessel. Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women.
• Pinker, Steven. The Blank Slate: A Modern Denial of Human Nature. London: Penguin Books, 2002.

External links

• Goldberg, Steven. Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance. Chicago, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Company, 1993.
• Seligman, Daniel. 'Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance'. National Review, April 4, 1994.

• 1993 books
• Books by Steven Goldberg
• Biology of gender
• Psychology books