Perhaps men ought to imitate the opposite sex.

Says Brent Bowers in his column Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Business.

The nature vs. nurture debate about gender.

(Third post in a series on the book Matrocracy. Link to first post.)
So-called "gender" feminists assert a blank slate theory: that men and women are inherently the same. Apparent cognitive and behavioral differences between men and women are purely a product of women’s subordination in a repressive patriarchy, they say, and should gradually disappear as women rise to a more equal footing with men.

But if the opposite were true, it could mean that we've been doing feminism all wrong – which could explain a lot about the movement's widespread stall after more than thirty years of trying to realize its promise.

Neuroscience has revealed gender differences in every major part of the brain. Many studies show brain regions that manage emotions, reasoning and even motor control are not the same in men and women. There are also huge gender differences in hormones that affect brain chemistry. One theory asserts that gender differences in brain function and chemistry largely cancel each other out so as to preclude gender differences from being seen in behavior.

In contrast to the feminist model, matrocracy embraces the alternative concept that men and women are inherently different. Culture has not accentuated these natural differences, but instead largely has acted to impose gender sameness in thought and behavior. In this view, the goal of reforming patriarchal institutions to end cultural strictures would not be to eliminate gender differences, but rather to enable women’s unique nature to more fully emerge. Women’s decision making strategies and outcomes are different from those of men historically and currently in power. (See previous post.) Recognition of gender differences is not an impediment to social progress – it is the key to finding solutions to some of humanity’s most difficult problems.
Link to fourth post in the series.

U.S. media discover Iraqi refugee crisis.

The N.Y. Times has finally run a feature story in its Sunday magazine about the crisis, observing that now fifteen percent of Iraqis have left their homes because of the war. Thousands of desperate young Iraqi women have been forced into prostitution in Syria. See my previous post about what you can do, and how just one day's interest on the U.S. debt for this war would relieve the refugees' suffering.

Is gender insulting to women leaders?

Sadly, gender denial by women in power seems to be seems to all too common in 21st century America. Responding to a question about her gender, Drew Faust, Harvard’s first female president, replied, "I’m not the woman president of Harvard, I’m the president of Harvard." N.Y. Times blogger Judith Warner agreed, arguing that attributing the newly appointed Faust’s notoriety as "a people person" to her gender "is to cut Faust off at the knees." A N.Y. Times reporter researching an article recently found very few female CEO's willing to say anything about gender. Could it be that women executives still regard their gender as a professional liability?

Yet gender is clearly an issue surrounding Dr. Faust’s appointment. It brings the number of female Ivy League Presidents to 50% - nearly to the percentage of women in the general population. Dr. Faust replaced a man who alienated many with his imperious style and his comments about gender differences. Dr. Faust, it is said, listens and makes people feel heard and included. Doesn’t it make sense that Harvard might want to bring on a woman as president at this time?

It’s time for female academic and business leaders to stop pretending that gender is irrelevant or unimportant. An increasing volume of scientific studies show that women and men’s brain structures, motivations and styles of interaction are, on average, a bit different. Yet many people, and especially feminists, remain convinced that if there are any behavioral differences between women and men, they are entirely due to socialization. The problem with continuing this difference denial is that it distracts us from the critical issue of what we do about differences.

It is time to explicitly recognize that we need more women leaders, and to take more steps to create opportunities for women at the top. This is not, as Judith Warner implies, insulting to women. We need to do this for the good of humanity.

No women leaders in the U.S. seemed insulted by a recent UNICEF report calling for more opportunities for women in developing countries. The report gave numerous examples of how with a greater role in family decision-making and with independent access to income, women make better choices for their children than men do. The same is true when women attain more influence in local or national policymaking: the people in their regions and nations are better off for the choices women make. To name just a few of the public policy consequences of placing greater emphasis on the welfare of children: economies are stronger, health care and schools are better, and wars are less likely. We could use more of this good judgment in the U.S.

Don't know much about politics.

(Second post in a series on the book Matrocracy. Link to first post.)
A recent op-ed by Linda Hirshman complained that women, particularly liberal white women, don’t know as much about current affairs, politics and government as men do. She cited polling data to back up her claim. Similar complaints have been lodged at minority groups in the past over the challenges of making societal reforms via the ballot box.

With only sixteen percent of the seats in Congress held by women, versus eighty-four percent held by men (see previous post), it’s no wonder the activities of that body and other legislatures don’t hold as much interest for women as they do for men. If you don’t think your voice is being heard anyway, and your expectation of actual participation in the legislature by you or others like you is low, you tend to tune out.

It is critical that we be proactive in increasing women’s participation in government. With more women legislators, governors, and presidential candidates, the political dialog will change to include more issues women care about. With rising expectations, hearts and minds will naturally follow. Then, what a wonderful world this would be.
Link to third post in the series.

Counter-veiling arguments.

Last October, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said full-face veils (niqabs) worn by women were a "mark of separation" keeping women from fully participating in society. Blair was backing House of Commons leader Jack Straw, who had requested that a group of Muslim women meeting with him remove the veils that prevented him from seeing any part of their faces except their eyes. Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi also said "it is important for our society" that women should not be hidden behind veils. Is this more than just another example of men telling women how to dress?

A preliminary issue about the veil is choice. Some veiled women insist that the choice is their own, but it seems apparent that for most veiled or burqa-clad women in the world the choice is religiously or culturally imposed. Removal of the veil in public would subject many women to social ostracism, beatings or death. So the veil issue is both about personal choice and about Western acceptance of a non-Western religious rule.

The controversy over veils in driver’s license photos was the subject of a recent dinner conversation. One of the participants, a male lawyer, argued that if a fingerprint could somehow be encoded onto an identification card, it would allow a woman who chose to be completely veiled for her driver’s license photo to nonetheless be uniquely identified in a traffic stop by police equipped with a fingerprint reader. This would eliminate the concern about identification that currently prevents some veiled women from obtaining driver’s licenses in the U.S. A woman who was part of the conversation countered that a full veil would still constitute a safety hazard, as it would obstruct both the peripheral vision and hearing of the driver.

Another male participant said that as a democracy that cherishes the full participation of all citizens in nearly all aspects of our governance and social values, we should show our collective disapproval of cultural norms that significantly restrict the full participation of either gender. Although the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution was never enacted, gender equality guides our public policies and values. We should impose those values on some of the privileges of citizenship, such as a license to drive a car, so as to discourage cultural practices that foster gender inequality.

A fourth member of the dinner group, a woman, said that we should follow the China model. The U.S. doesn’t approve of the Chinese government’s human rights policies, but has decided that making China a full player in the world economy will distribute economic power within Chinese society. The resulting affluence will be a force for freedom and democracy, and the people will demand change. Similarly, we should allow veiled women to drive so that they will have greater mobility and not be prisoners in their own houses. Once these women have a taste of freedom, they will demand change within their religions and cultures. Preventing them from driving will only maintain the separation of these women from mainstream Western culture and inhibit change.

Although the intersection between personal choice and practices imposed by long-standing and deep power inequities is difficult to navigate, it is a fundamental question in dismantling a hierarchy. What rules do you think we should impose on veil wearers?

A longer view of compromise.

An NPR News series called Crossing the Divide examines political and cultural differences and how they can be bridged. The episode on Friday’s Morning Edition (Jan. 26) linked reconciliation in chimpanzees to game theory in politics. It’s no small coincidence that the book Matrocracy also examines what chimpanzee behavior and game theory tell us about gender differences.

Compromise, the third topic in the NPR episode, featured an interview with author Robert Remini about Senator Henry Clay, "the Great Compromiser." Clay’s Missouri Compromise of 1820 put off the American Civil War for another two generations at the small price of keeping the institution of slavery alive and permitting its westward expansion. But what was left unsaid by NPR is that we need a vision of compromise that doesn't mean the perpetuation of wrong, and that takes a both a larger and a longer view.

Matrocracy examines how women generally are more open to compromise than men, and shows how women’s greater influence likely will spread more cooperative approaches that will benefit our world. At the same time, Matrocracy argues, women generally take a larger and a longer view in policy and problem solving. Women are more likely to include everyone in decisions, including the less powerful, and to think about the consequences over a longer term.

My hope and expectation is that as we increasingly search for compromise and cooperation, and as women’s influence grows, we also will increasingly take a longer view. We should avoid compromises in the tradition of Clay that our descendants in the next century likely would judge to be as barbaric and immoral as we view slavery today.