Like the EPs, Eagly and Wood reject social constructionist notions that all gender differences are created by culture. But to the question of where they come from, they answer differently: not our genes but our roles in society. This narrative focuses on how societies respond to the basic biological differences--men's strength and women's reproductive capabilities--and how they encourage men and women to follow certain patterns. If you're spending a lot of time nursing your kid, explains Wood, "then you don't have the opportunity to devote large amounts of time to developing specialized skills and engaging tasks outside of the home." And, adds Eagly, "if women are charged with caring for infants, what happens is that women are more nurturing. Societies have to make the adult system work [so] socialization of girls is arranged to give them experience in nurturing."
According to this interpretation, as the environment changes, so will the range and texture of gender differences. At a time in Western countries when female reproduction is extremely low, nursing is totally optional, childcare alternatives are many, and mechanization lessens the importance of male size and strength, women are no longer restricted as much by their smaller size and by child-bearing. That means, argue Eagly and Wood, that role structures for men and women will change and, not surprisingly, the way we socialize people in these new roles will change too. (Indeed, says Wood, "sex differences seem to be reduced in societies where men and women have similar status," she says. If you're looking to live in more gender-neutral environment, try Scandinavia.)
Certainly these are more optimistic theories for women who have themselves moved into the "male" world of work outside the home. "I think," continues Eagly, that "we would expect the shift only toward women taking on masculine qualities, because that's where the social change has been in terms of roles," she explains. "Women have moved into a lot of male-dominated [areas]. You don't see the reciprocal shifts psychologically--men becoming kinder and more nurturing," she says, because the social changes haven't produced more contact between men and babies. What's critical for more equality, she says--equality being one of her goals--is a "less sharp division of labor."
In a footnote in his book Civilization and Its Discontents, Sigmund Freud offers a bizarre account of the origin of differences between the sexes. When left alone with a campfire, he explains, primitive man could not help but urinate on it. It was in his nature, a working out of his homosexual struggle with a competitive penis-symbol, the flame. It was part of being anatomically able and competitively-prone. See a fire, piss it out. That's how women--clearly less able in this sport--become the tenders of the hearth.
Certainly no one would debate that--were we able to put Freud on his own couch--this theory would tell us more about its author than about the origins of gender differences. We might interpret the theories of some liberal psychologists in a similar vein. In the heady revolutionary 1960s and '70s, they believed you could banish gender differences with a little re-education. "We thought," explains Diane Halpern, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at California State-San Bernadino, who began her research in the late 1970s, "that there weren't going to be many [differences], that they weren't going to be significant, and those that there were could be attributed to bias." (She has since revised her thinking.)
In the development of current theories, there's a lot more research going on. Eagly and Wood are working on a series of papers to prove their "social roles" theory. In his book, Male, Female (APA, 1998), Geary used some 1,200 references. "I had to do overkill in order to prove the point," he reflects, "because there's so much resistance to the idea that there are real biological differences."
But even with all this research, dramatic differences in interpretation come into a relief, along with a clear gender divide over the question of whether men and women must--biologically--adhere to certain behaviors. That story of philandering fathers developed by the EPs, for instance, could be just a story.
Indeed, says Lynn Miller, Ph.D., professor of communication and psychology at the University of Southern California, it's possible to tell an entirely different evolutionary tale. Forget the abandoning fathers. To her, "we were adapted for the important role of fathers as well as mothers." Miller argues that because human birthing is so difficult--the newborn's head is larger than the birth canal--and because human infants are so fragile, humans depend on fathers' active involvement. "We probably are the descendants of men who gave that additional care," she says. And, she adds, "When you look across cultures, where fathers are more heavily involved with offspring, their children are more likely to delay sexually activity, less likely to be violent, and more likely to be in a monogamous and more enduring relationship."
Tags:
agitation,
battle of the sexes,
biological differences,
boys against girls,
culture family,
hearth,
objections,
origins,
rages,
rancor,
serious research,
skirmish,
society culture,
spitballs,
war between the sexes
