Sexual Suicide

It is easy to understand why left-wing egalitarians have embraced and aggrandized the new fashion of women's lib. For to justify the destructive fantasies of an egalitarian Utopia, the egalitarian has to believe and proclaim that there are no, can be no, must be no, biological and genetic differences between individuals or between genetically identifiable groups of individuals. Biological and genetic differences stand like a rock in the face of the egalitarian leftist's desire to mold everyone into a uniform, homogenized and protoplasmic mass. In contrast, biological reality is one of the most vital arguments in favor of individual liberty. If, as the biologist Roger Williams has so strikingly shown, each individual is genetically unique, then his (or her) uniqueness and irreplaceability makes his liberty and the development of his potential a precious thing; if, on the other hand, every person or group were really the same ("equal"), then why should anyone care about their individual liberty or their life itself? Hence, Williams' phrase, "free and unequal." Furthermore, the individual's genetic heritage must inevitably defeat all attempts by totalitarians to defy nature by molding everyone through manipulating their social environment. Egalitarianism, moreover, overlooks the vital economic importance—also in tune with genetic reality—of specialization and the division of labor.

If it is easy to understand the enthusiasm for women's lib and other egalitarian doctrines among left-wing collectivists, it is far more difficult to explain the similar enthusiasm among all too many libertarians. It is hard to resist the conclusion that many people have embraced libertarianism not from a tough-minded analysis of the nature of man and the universe, but from a mere desire to be left alone to pursue their infantile whims.

If individuals differ in their genetic endowment, it stands to reason that genetically different groups will also exhibit differing traits; and among identifiably different groups of human beings, it is hard to conceive of two groups whose genetic differences are as clear-cut or as clearly identifiable as males and females. Both Gilder and Goldberg—at long last—base their works on the inevitable biological differences between men and women.

The fact that it has taken so long for these anti-women's lib books to emerge gives the lie to the feminist contention that the striking social differences between men and women are purely the result of the "brainwashing" of women by an oppressive and male-dominated culture. If women have been suffering from male oppression, how come we have been deluged for years by hundreds of books, lectures and TV programs in favor of women's lib, while—until Gilder and Goldberg—the only substantive critique of women's lib has been leveled by a woman, Midge Decter? How come the "male oppressors" have been so silent? At any rate, the cause of truth and justice is indebted to the courage of Gilder and Goldberg for coming forward; perhaps their books will inaugurate a welcome "male backlash."

While both Gilder and Goldberg have similar social and biological points of view, the books are very different. Where, for example, Gilder is flashy and provocative, Goldberg is careful and superbly scholarly. While Gilder, given to brash and broad overstatement, will sell far more copies, one hopes that Goldberg will not be neglected: for Professor Goldberg's work is by far the most significant work on sex differences in decades. While Gilder scores the debating points, Goldberg's book will endure.

George Gilder's extremely clever debating strategy is to use what might be called "judo tactics." Yes, he says to the feminists, women are the superior sex, and men are weak and frail creatures, given to crime and random aggression. But it is precisely for that reason, he concludes, that women should abandon destructive women's lib and allow men to be superior in work, status and power. Roughly, Gilder argues as follows: women are superior in all things related to sex, superior both in sex itself and in all the life-forces embodied in maternity. Furthermore, in order to maintain her maternal and nurturing role, in order to maintain civilization itself, women must use feminine wiles and social pressure to force men into becoming good providers for their families, to mold them away from their promiscuous and random criminal instincts. But in order to do that, men have to be allowed some compensations, and these are superiority in power, status and jobs. Take that satisfaction away from them and men will disappear from the family into a dysfunctional and anti-social role. In short: for heaven's sake, girls, let the men have some sphere of attainment; if not, society and civilization will collapse.

It is amusing to observe the reactions of feminist reviewers toward Gilder's Sexual Suicide. When they don't simply rant and rave, they have to concede Gilder's argument, since it confirms their assumed contempt for the male gender. Their argument then boils down to: but who needs these blankety-blank men anyway? In luring the feminists into this stance, Gilder induces them to expose the bankruptcy of their position. For while feminists may enjoy the absurd analogy of women with blacks, and while black separatism may be a cogent if not a very practical doctrine, the idea of female separatism is too idiotic to be entertained seriously.

While it is pleasant to see the feminists hoist by their own petard, it is surely true that men are not all that frail; in the march of civilization and in the great division of labor by gender, each sex plays a necessary and vital role. The idea, furthermore, that men have to be drummed into line and into civilization by women is pop Freudianism at its flimsiest.

Professor Goldberg's work, in contrast, is a carefully honed and scholarly blockbuster. Goldberg has many important insights on sex differences that are in all probability biologically and genetically based: ranging from estrogen and the "maternal instinct" through the many scientific studies as well as human history that demonstrate overwhelming male superiority in those disciplines that require great ability in abstract logic. The latter include: mathematics, philosophy, musical composition and chess playing. (Where are the female Aristotles, Einsteins, Bachs, Rembrandts, Bobby Fischers?) He also offers a brilliant defense of social "stereotypes." But Goldberg devotes most of his book to the one area where he demonstrates the evidence for male "superiority" to be absolutely unchallengeable and copper-riveted, on both anthropological and physiological evidence. First, Goldberg demonstrates that, in every single one of several thousand cultures in human history, every one has been marked by male dominance and "patriarchy." In short, males have been the authority in every one of several thousand cultures. Taking the time to refute every alleged instance where male dominance supposedly did not exist, Goldberg asks: if the environmentalists are right and this dominance was the result of cultural "brainwashing," then how come the males were able to dominate each and every culture in the first place? For such domination simply proves the anti-feminist point. That the dominance was due to physical strength for arduous labor Goldberg refutes by showing that even in those primitive tribes where women did the arduous labor and men were relatively idle, men still possessed the positions of authority. Furthermore, he points out that in the modern industrial society which requires a more extensive division of labor than in primitive tribes, male dominance becomes necessarily more pervasive and significant. Also Goldberg points out that even those societies which have adopted women's lib and egalitarianism as their official credos (e.g. Soviet Russia, Communist China and the Israeli kibbutzim) are thoroughly dominated by males.

But while Goldberg sees that this unanimous anthropological evidence develops an overwhelming case for a biological groundwork for male dominance and patriarchy, Goldberg does not simply rest there. For he presents us with very recent scientific evidence for the biological cause of male "aggression" (defined not just as coercion but broadly as initiative, drive for status, etc.). That evidence is the enormously greater presence of the hormone testosterone in males (averaging ten times as much as in the female), and also the evidence that testosterone leads physiologically to such "aggression." Specifically, the neo-natal male baby receives a jolt of testosterone which sensitizes his brain and central nervous system, so that the next massive jolt of testosterone at puberty is translated into a permanently more "aggressive" being. If, then, girls are "socialized" away from competitive and high-status occupations in the market place, and boys are socialized toward them, this is not arbitrary and oppressive brainwashing, but a reasonable way in which girls and boys are influenced in the direction of biological normality. For if this socializing process did not take place, then women would be permanently miserable for thinking of themselves as failures in the competitive race. The analogy, as Goldberg points out, is to ponder what would happen if girls were not socialized away from any possible interest in professional boxing. Social roles and "stereotypes," here as in many other areas, conform to biological reality. As natural law philosophy has taught us, there is no higher test for a valid ethic for humanity.

Of the two authors, Professor Golberg in particular rests on the high ground of scientific truth. The only "arguments" against him are the whims and fantasies of egalitarians who foolishly yearn to play God with the universe.

Reviewed by Murray N. Rothbard / Sexual Suicide (308 pages, indexed) / BFL Price $7.95