Double Bind Dilemmas for Women in Leadership

Double Bind Dilemmas for Women in Leadership

by | Jul 27, 2020 | Gender Politics, Women's Issues

On July 20, Republican Representative Ted Yoho called Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez “disgusting” and a “fucking bitch” on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. Ocasio-Cortez eloquently rebutted Yoho on the House floor saying, “This issue is not about one incident. This is not new. And that is the problem. It is cultural. It is a culture of lack of impunity, of accepting violence and violent language against women and an entire structure of power than supports that.”

When Carol Moseley-Braun was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1992, she was the first female African American senator. As she recounted to listeners of NPR’s Hidden Brain in 2016, Braun assumed that racism would be a more formidable obstacle to her success as a U.S. Senator than gender bias. But that is not what happened.

When Braun made impassioned pleas on the floor of the Senate supporting her positions for voting rights and gun control (to name a few), all her male colleagues heard was the voice of a shrill black woman — at least that was the disappointing and humiliating narrative Braun felt in her soul.

“I think in some regards the gender biases are more profound and more central to our culture than even the racial ones, and that to me was a surprise,” she said.

Damned if You Do, Damned (or doomed) if you Don’t

I have described potential double binds in the context of women’s mating strategies in Double Binds Imposed on Men.

But what about the double binds that women face?

Women face double binds that involve the biological, evolutionary, and cultural application of mate selection and relationship dynamics. (See chart at end of post.) I will address them another time. For now – let’s address a pressing concern: There are double binds facing women in American leadership.

Caution Ahead

Braun’s experience was a cautionary tale. Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential candidacy appeared to underscore the problem. Leaders must sometimes be strong, tough, assertive, and decisive. Yet women leaders are expected to be accommodating and likable (even sweet), and never shrill, abrasive, or angry. This is an untenable dilemma.

The double bind that challenges women in political and corporate leadership affects all of us. It not only impedes the advancement and service of individual women, but it also reduces our nation’s capacity for problem-solving, policymaking, and innovation. Women leaders in politics and business bring sensitivities, interests, and emotional intelligence that improve our decision-making and enhances our health and cultural well-being.

There are evolutionary roots to this double bind. They include sex differences, preferences for spheres of influence (group systems vs. family), and adaptations for the division of labor.1 But we can and must move beyond the “shadow” of our evolutionary causations in order to secure the future health of American democracy.

 

Biases that Women Face – Embedded Societal Expectations

A Pew Research Center study (2017) asked people: “what traits or characteristics do you think society values most in women and in men?” Respondents said men were valued (in rank order) for their honesty and morality (33%), professional and financial success (23%), ambition and leadership (19%), strength and toughness (19%), hard work (18%), and physical attractiveness (11%). Women were valued for their physical attractiveness (35%), empathy, nurturing and kindness (30%), intelligence (22%), honesty and morality (14%), ambition and leadership (9%), and only 5% for strength and toughness. Notably, when asked what trait women should not have, 28% of respondents mentioned traits related to ambition, leadership and assertiveness, far more than any other trait or characteristic.

These are very strong headwaters of bias to swim against for women aspiring to and serving in leadership roles.

 

Research on Gender Stereotypes

Research by Madeline Heilman (Professor of Psychology, New York University) focuses on gender stereotypes and bias, particularly when it comes to leadership. In one study, Heilman asked volunteers to evaluate a high-powered manager who was coming into a company. When the candidate was presented as a very ambitious and high-powered women, the person was seen as unlikeable; but not so when the very same person was presented as a man. Heilman says “we have conceptions about these jobs and these positions and what is required to do them well, and there’s a lack of fit between how we see women and what these positions require.” Double binds arise in our minds because our minds are trying to align our stereotypes about men and women with our stereotypes about leadership.

These biases are not just held by men. They are held by both sexes, which explains why female leaders encounter derision and suspicion from both men and women.

 

Gender Attributions about Emotions

Researcher Lisa Feldman-Barrett at Northeastern University (How Emotions Are Made, 2017) had subjects look at faces of men and women and assess their emotions and the context of that emotion. When looking at male faces expressing emotion, respondents said the man was just having a bad day – or something bad had happened to him. Whereas, when women expressed emotion, they were described as neurotic or unstable. Men’s emotions were attributed to what was going on around them, but women’s emotions were seen as shaped “by their nature.”

Feldman-Barrett found that if women expressed too much emotion, they were seen as unsuitable for leadership or unstable in some way. Emotional men were seen as mostly rational or level-headed. But if a woman did not express enough emotion, they were seen as not warm, empathetic, or trustworthy (the “Hillary effect”). Apparently, a woman can get in trouble for expressing emotion and for not expressing emotion. This is a toxic double bind.

 

“Women Take Care and Men Take Charge” — Redefining Leadership Itself

Although the Pew survey results align with an understanding of biological sex differences and mate selection trait preferences, what is “natural” is not necessarily good for us. Even if gender stereotypes have a deep evolutionary past, they cause no win-situations for women leaders in our present-day politics, and that hurts all of us.

“The female gender role is based on the stereotype that women are nice and kind and compassionate,” says social psychologist, Alice Eagly (Through the Labyrinth: The Truth About How Women Become Leaders, 2007). By contrast, “in a leadership role, one is expected to take charge and sometimes demonstrate toughness – make tough decisions and be assertive in moving the organization forward, and sometimes fire people for cause.” The good news, says Eagly, is that our views of men and women are changing, and our ideas about the meaning of leadership are changing.

Indeed, it is time to redefine what it means to be a leader in the American political arena. The less we see leaders as alpha males, the easier it will be to see women as leaders. Fortunately, that redefinition has been going on in the corporate world for many years.

 

Three Predicaments

Catalyst2 is an organization that supports “workplaces that work for women.” They have identified three “predicaments” (double bind dilemmas) that women leaders face:

1. Extreme perceptions: too soft, too tough, and never just right. When women act in ways that are consistent with gender stereotypes, they are viewed as less competent leaders (too soft). When women act in ways that are inconsistent with such stereotypes, they’re considered unfeminine (too tough).

2. High competence threshold: Women leaders face higher standards and lower rewards than male leaders. Women have to prove they can lead over and over again and constantly manage stereotypical expectations.

3. Competent but disliked: Women leaders are perceived as competent or likable, but rarely both.

 

The Hillary Trifecta

Hillary Clinton embodied all three predicaments. She was seen as shrill, cold, and not emotional. (But not in private.) The standards for judging her performance as Senator and Secretary of State were always very high. And her competence, while arguably beyond reproach, made her somehow unlikeable. From the seven-minute standing ovation she received as the first student to speak at a Wellesley College commencement, Hillary had the additional problem of being one of the first women of her generation to break with the traditional role of wife. She was the first First Lady to have an office in the West Wing of the White House.

 

Strategies to Dismantle the Leadership Double Bind

Catalyst suggests three strategies for dismantling the women’s leadership double bind:

1. Interrupt bias. Speak up if you hear colleagues use words that reinforce negative gender stereotypes such as, “she is abrasive”,” “she is so emotional,” or “she talks too much.” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spoke up.

2. Use the same standard for women and men when evaluating employees. Reverse the gender of the person you are evaluating to see if it makes a difference in your language or assessment.

3. Be a visible champion. Promote the accomplishments of women and actively advocate for their development and advancement, thus serving as a role model for others to do the same.

 

Redefining Leadership is Actually Old News

The field of organizational development has been redefining leadership for 50 years. Beginning in 1970 with the ground-breaking Center for Creative Leadership, the field gained momentum with such landmark books (and practices) as Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline (1990), Roger Schwartz’ The Skilled Facilitator (1994), and William Isaacs’ Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together (1999). The science and art of participatory decision making and teamwork has been clear in its message: the process of generating information and making decisions (process leadership) are as important as content, task, or subject matter expertise. Women arguably have a more natural affinity (both interest and skill) for process leadership than do men. It is, of course, totally within the capacity of men to do this. I certainly did in my career as a facilitator and group process designer.

 

Busting the Double Bind Paradigm

A Zen master says to his pupils: “If you say this stick is real, I will beat you. If you say this stick is not real, I will beat you. If you say nothing, I will beat you.” One pupil, however, found a solution by changing the level of communication. He walked up to the teacher, grabbed the stick, and broke it.

A redefinition of leadership includes (as in the practice of process facilitation) a redefinition of the double bind itself. A double bind is built inside a box of “either/or” thinking. Collaboration is built on “both/and” thinking. There is an entire discipline of problem-solving and thinking skills for generating collaboration and consensus. As a fun warm-up, organizational development consultants sometimes facilitate comedy improv exercises to practice a variant, “yes/and” thinking. Can we get Mitch McConnell and his buddies into a month-long retreat?

 

Interdependent Polarities

A double bind can often be seen as an interdependent polarity.3 There is a sweet spot between likable and strong, in a “dance” of situation and context. Whereas men tend (on average) to be more binary thinkers, women (on average) are good at “both/and” thinking if left to their own devices. Organizational consultant Tim Arnold (The Power of Healthy Tension: Overcoming Chronic Issues and Conflicting Values, 2017) encourages leaders to embrace a healthy “tension.” Perhaps double binds are not a problem to solve but instead a tension or paradox to manage.

 

Signs of Progress – Membership Has its Privileges

The 116th U.S. Congress (2019-2021) has 127 women (23.7 percent) — the highest percentage ever. But less than 1 in 4 women lawmakers does not make new a political “culture.”

The New York Times recently addressed the seven biases that women face: “In Her Words: 7 Issues, 7 Days.” “Women in Politics” (day 6) noted that in 2019, Nevada became the first state legislature to have more women — 23 out of 42 seats in the Assembly. Women make up 40 percent or more of the legislatures in Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and Vermont, with Maryland almost at that percentage. A balance of more women in political leadership should help reduce the prevalence and toxicity of double binds that women face.

 

Beyond the “Pantsuit”

A year after Braun was elected to the U.S. Senate, she and Senator Barbara Mikulski broke the unwritten rule that women were not allowed to wear pants on the Senate floor. In what she calls the “pantsuit episode,” Braun explained: “I was wearing my nice outfit, I thought, and I walked onto the Senate floor and gasps were audible.” That was in 1993 – only 23 hears before Hillary Clinton would become the first female presidential nominee for a major political party, pantsuits and all. Leadership had a new look. But biases and double binds? Not so much. We still have work to do.

1. Gender/sex-based spheres of influence and the development of human culture is a very important area of focus and will be explored more in this space at a later time.

2. Founded in 1962, Catalyst is a leading research and advisory organization that works with business and professions to build inclusive environments and expand opportunities for women at work using practical tools and proven solutions to advance women into leadership.

3. There is much more to be said about interdependent polarities in relationships (and not just heterosexual relationships). As explored by Esther Perel and others, here are some key polarities: predictability vs. novelty, security vs. adventure, autonomy vs. surrender, comfort vs. excitement, and freedom vs. commitment.

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 

Is Your Sexual Foot on the Accelerator or Brake?

Is Your Sexual Foot on the Accelerator or Brake?

by | Jun 2, 2020 | Biological Difference, Relationship Issues, Sexuality, Women's Issues

Men and women are different. Their “sexual engine” makes different use of the accelerator and brake. Author, sex researcher, and professor of women’s sexuality, Emily Nagoski, calls this the “dual control model” (Come As You Are, 2015). This model explains aspects of the biological and psychological difference between male and female sexuality and what we need to know to have sexual self-confidence and empathy for our partners.

Accelerator vs. Brake

The central sexual response mechanism in the brains of men and women consist of two universal components – a sexual accelerator and a sexual brake.

This dual control model consists of two parts:

  1. The Sexual Excitation System (SES) or “accelerator” of sexual response receives information about sexually relevant stimuli in the environment. It sends signals from the brain to the genitals to “turn-on”. The SES constantly scans the “context” (including thoughts and feelings) for things that are sexually relevant. With the SES, anything you see, hear, smell, taste, or imagine might send a “turn-on” message.
  2. The Sexual Inhibition System (SIS) is the sexual “brake.” This system notices all potential threats in the environment (such as STI transmission, unwanted pregnancy, social consequences of sexual activity) and sends signals to “turn off”. Nagoski calls this the sexual “foot brake.” It is primarily associated with the fear of consequences. There is also a second brake, more akin to a handbrake, associated with a fear of performance failure, like worry about not having an orgasm. “If you try to drive with the handbrake on,” says Nagoski, you might be able to get where you want to go, but it’ll take longer and use a lot more gas” (Come As You Are, p. 49).
For Arousal — Activate the Accelerator and Deactivate the Brake

Arousal (psychological desire) happens with activation of the accelerator and deactivation of the brake. The former is more salient for men, the latter more important for women. Male sexuality is accelerator-dominant because the SES scans for female attributes that are cues of fertility. The SES (in men) is the pursuer and the initiator. Women’s brake system comports with the evolutionary agenda for a cautious choice of a mate and a need for safety.

Accelerator and Brake in the Brain

Differences in brain structure between men and women are related to the male-dominant accelerator system and the female-dominant brake system.

Men, in general, have a higher baseline of activity in the older part of the brain, the limbic system, which makes them particularly alert during the first stage of seduction, according to Marianne Legato* (Why Men Die First). The medial preoptic area (MPOA), found in the hypothalamus, is related to sexual pursuit and is 2.5 times larger in males, according to neuropsychiatrist Louann Brizendine (The Male Brain). Men also show greater activity in the visual cortex when perceiving erotic pictures, reflecting a gender-specific visual mechanism for sexual selection.

Female Amygdala is More Sensitive to the Fear of Consequences

The brain’s danger and alert system is the amygdala. While larger in males, the female amygdala seems to be more sensitive to the fear of consequences descriptive of the braking system.

Brain’s Worry Center is Bigger in Women

Another part of the brain, the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), is also involved in “braking.” According to Brizendine, the ACC is the worrywart, fear-of-punishment area, and center of sexual performance anxiety. It weighs options, detects conflicts, and motivates decisions. The ACC is also the area for self-consciousness (the “handbrake”). The ACC is bigger in women. In addition to a less active ACC in men, testosterone decreases worry about punishment and reduces the strength of a sexual brake and fortifies the sexual accelerator.

Women Put On the Brakes

For women, in both ancient and modern times, safety is a powerful need that activates the sexual brake: fear of being killed, being raped, getting pregnant, and/or having their reputation destroyed. A woman’s deepest unconscious fear is that a man will rape or kill her. (A man’s deepest unconscious fear is that a woman will sexually humiliate him.)

Sexual Temperament Questionnaire

According to Nagoski’s research using her “Sexual Temperament Questionnaire,” 50-65% of women have a moderately strong inhibition system (SIS). Any increase in stress (anxiety, overwhelm, exhaustion) will reduce interest. And, 25% of women have a “high” SIS or a very strong braking system. These women are sensitive to all reasons not to be aroused and have more sexual problems than women with less active SIS. Nagoski says low female desire is not about hormones or boredom with monogamy; it is most likely about stress, depression, anxiety, trauma, attachment, relationship satisfaction, and lack of self-compassion. [Other researchers say boredom and lack of novelty do affect female marital desire.]

SES and SIS Operate Independently

The sensitivity of the SES and SIS are individual traits. Both can be sensitive, both can be not sensitive, and one or the other can be sensitive and not sensitive, co-existing together. (It can get very complicated!) But the general differences of dual control between men and women directly affect their sexual relating and sexual psychology. These differences are congruent with evolutionary theory and mate selection science.

Asexuals Have Essentially No Sexual Excitation System

A fairly weak accelerator (independent of brakes) is one predictor of asexuality – people who do not desire sexual contact. In studies of self-identified asexuals, researchers found asexuals had significantly “less accelerator” activity than their sexual counterparts (Prause and Graham, 2007**). Nagoski posits that part of the cause of asexuality as a sexual orientation for women is that their brains do not notice sexually relevant stimuli. Nagoski says asexuals represent only about 1 percent of the general population. Whereas, about 5-10 percent of women score as having low SES on the Sexual Temperament Questionnaire.

Why is it Important to Understand the Sexual Accelerator and Brake?

Men and women have differences that we must acknowledge and understand to have fulfilling romantic and sexual relationships.

A difference in the level of desire is the single most common sexual dysfunction for couples. Usually, that dysfunction includes a belief by one partner that their level of desire is better or is the way it “should be.” Nagoski suggests it is not the differential in desire that causes the dysfunction but how the couple manages it. The problem isn’t desire itself; it’s the context. What is needed is more sexually relevant stimuli activating the accelerator and fewer things hitting the brake.

Advice for Couples

Good advice to couples is to focus first and foremost on the operation of her “brakes.”  What is the right context for romance and sex; what context for sexual expression takes her foot off the brake? What are the sources of her stress, anxiety, and relationship dissatisfaction? What trauma is still unexamined and unresolved? What triggers her handbrake — body image concerns or worry about orgasm? The to-do list in her head?

Nagoski has a helpful worksheet in Come As You Are to identify and list the “not-so-sexy” inhibitory contexts (as well as a worksheet for situational accelerators) in the following categories: mental and physical well-being, partner characteristics, relationship characteristics, other life circumstances, and the sexual activities practiced.

Conclusion

The composition of our excitation and inhibition systems is set by our biology, life experiences, and habits. Creating the right balance of acceleration and braking for any person or couple is more art than science, and probably hard work. Again, these are individualized sensitivities. But there is no substitute for giving your partner understanding, acceptance, and compassion. Start with how men and women are generally different and what part of that difference is true for you as a person and a couple. Let’s refuel that engine with the right contexts and get it back on the road at the right speed.

Notes

See blog: Spontaneous and Response Desire — the Underbelly of Heterosexual Mating and future blogs on the importance of context for women.

*Marianne Legato is an internationally renowned academic, physician, author, lecturer, and pioneer in the field of gender-specific medicine. She is Professor Emerita of Clinical Medicine at Columba University and founder of The Partnership of Gender-Specific Medicine.

**Prause, N. and Graham, C., “Asexuality: classification and characterization.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 36, 2007, p. 341-56).

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 

Why More Men Than Women Die of COVID-19

Why More Men Than Women Die of COVID-19

by | Apr 7, 2020 | Biological Difference, Men's Issues, Women's Issues

“There are profound sex differences in immune systems and this pandemic is revealing them.”
Marcia Stefanick, Stanford University School of Medicine.

More men than women have died of the COVID-19 virus. In China, Italy, South Korea, Germany, France, Iran, the U.S – everywhere around the world, the death rate of men to women is disproportionate. In New York City, men have died at nearly twice the rate.

Death rates from COVID-19 are more evidence of the biological differences between men and women. What are the components of these differences related to the pandemic?

Habits and Comorbidity

Questions about the sex discrepancy in death rates have focused (heretofore) mostly on male behavior: higher rates of tobacco assumption, reluctance to seek medical care, and even lower rates of handwashing.

Smoking is associated with negative progression and adverse outcomes of COVID-19. Smokers are more likely to have lung disease, which is a risk factor for severe infection. Also, smokers are more likely to touch their mouths and face.

But, Sabra Klein, Professor of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology at John Hopkins* suggests that smoking is not the leading factor. “There is a growing observation of increased mortality in men across very diverse countries and cultures. When I see that, it makes me think that there must be something universal that is contributing to this.” Klein’s prior research revealed that men have lower innate antiviral immune responses to a range of infections including hepatitis C and HIV. “Their immune system may not initiate an appropriate response when it initially sees the virus.”

Men also have other “comorbidities”: higher rates of pre-existing conditions such as heart disease, high blood pressure, and diabetes. These conditions increase the risk of death from the virus.

Kathryn Sandberg, Director of the Center for the Study of Sex Differences in Health, Aging and Disease at Georgetown University, says one explanation for the disparity in COVID-19 deaths may have to do with angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), a protein on the surface of the cells in the lungs and other organs. ACE2 is key in regulating blood pressure and it works differently and more favorably for women. COVID-19 binds to ACE2. A study of COVID-19 patients in China found hypertension as the most common risk factor.

Overall Differences in Male and Female Lifespan and Risk of Death

We did not need a pandemic to know men live (on average) 4 years less than women; male suicide rates are much higher; significantly more men die at work and in war. We know men aged 15-25 have a vastly greater risk of injury and death. Evolutionary psychology speaks volumes about the reasons for the risky behavior of men vs. women. (It is related to androgens and mating behavior.)

In the context of a pandemic, it makes sense to remember those markers of health and longevity, but also to look deeper for underlying biological causes.

When it Comes to Survival, Men are the Weaker Sex.

Men are the weaker sex independent of a pandemic; the innate biological advantage of women is apparent at every age and stage of human life. Baby girls are more likely to make it to their first birthday. Eighty percent of all centenarians today are women; ninety-five percent of those who reach the age of 110 are women.

Female survival advantage holds regardless of education, economic factors, and alcohol, drug, or tobacco consumption.

Sandberg underscores the bottom-line: “It doesn’t matter what the infectious agent is, women tend to be better at knocking it down because they have a more robust immune system.”

Genetic Disadvantage for Males and Female Immunity

Female genetic superiority starts at the chromosomal level. The cells of genetic females have two X chromosomes. Having the use of a spare X chromosome gives females an advantage against a virus.

There are more than 2,000 genes on the two X chromosomes that interact and cooperate within a women’s body. Each cell predominantly uses one X chromosome over the other. According to physician and scientist, Sharon Moaelm*, if one X chromosome has genes that better recognize an invading virus like COVID-19, the other X chromosome that can do a different task – like killing cells infected with COVID -19. This makes the fight against the virus more efficient for women. An extra X brings extra immune functioning.

Males have to get by with just one X chromosome. If a male’s genes are not capable of recognizing or killing cells infected with the coronavirus, his ability to fight the infection will be limited. Historically, coronaviruses such as SARS and MERS tended to affect men disproportionately, according to Luis Ostrosky-Zeichner, infectious disease specialist at McGovern Medical School at UTHealth in Texas.

Since women have a greater immune response to the virus, they are quicker to reduce its viral load – the quantity of the virus. Women may also be able to launch an earlier attack on infections in general, saving the body from needing to use all of its virus-fighting capacity later.

It should be noted that women pay a cost for having a more aggressive immune system. Women are more prone to autoimmune diseases. The immune system of genetic females is more likely to attack themselves, which occurs in conditions like rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, autoimmune thyroiditis, Sjogren’s syndrome, and lupus.

Hormonal Disadvantage for Males and Advantage for Females

Higher levels of testosterone appear to suppress the immune system. Estrogens have been found to stimulate a more vigorous immune response.

From an evolutionary perspective, some research suggests women have a stronger immune system against viral infections than men because they spend part of their lives with a “foreign body” inside of them; their baby grants them a survival advantage. Ostrosky-Zeichner believes that advantage may be related to hormonal changes.

Going Forward with Tests and Vaccine

A better understanding of men’s and women’s immune system response to the virus could be critical in developing a good vaccine. There are well-documented differences in vaccine effectiveness among men and women, with women tending to be better protected after vaccination. Therefore, it may be especially important to ensure that sex is taken into account when designing and analyzing vaccine trials.

And, as we develop antibody testing, what are the differences in the antibodies produced in men vs. women? Should the test be gender-specific? Sex differences in the immune response to COVID-19 are likely to show up in antibody surveys currently underway across the world.

Conclusion

Knowing more about how the virus differently impacts men and women could help determine the most effective treatment for individual patients. Nearly 20 years ago, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences published a report that claimed: “Being male or female is an important variable that should be considered.”

Moalem claims there has been little tangible progress on this insight in the practice of medicine. “We must now apprehend the real biological strength that each genetic female possesses and how men differ in this regard. The future of medicine depends upon it.”

*Sabra Klein is also President of the Organization for the Study of Sex Differences (OSSD).

**Sharon Moalem is a scientist, physician, and author. His most recent book is The Better Half: On the Genetic Superiority of Women. Moalem is an expert in the fields of rare diseases, sex differentiation, neurogenetics, and biotechnology.

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 

Can We Be Honest About Women?

Can We Be Honest About Women?

by | Mar 24, 2020 | Gender Politics, Men's Issues, Women's Issues

In 2017, David French of the National Review wrote an article stating that men enter high-status professions and achieve wealth in part, or even primarily, to gain access to beautiful women. D.C. McAllister responded to French with her own analysis, “Can We Be Honest About Women?” in The Federalist (Dec.12, 2017).  She countered French by saying many men enter high-status professions in order to best other men in their field of expertise, not just to get beautiful women.  McAllister said competition can fuel men even more than sex.  Here, McAllister misunderstands cause and effect, ends, and means.  She misunderstands the underlying reason for male status aspiration and male competition.  At the most primal level of evolutionary adaptation, male competition is only about sex.

Woman Collude For Their Own Benefit

Most importantly, McAllister’s piece in The Federalist took issue with the assumption that women are passive and innocent in this situation. She spelled out basic truths about women that created ire among her feminist detractors.  David French asked what is wrong with men.   Rather than posit that men are wrong, McAllister correctly asserted that women “naturally” collude with men for their own benefit. Further, McAllister courageously proffered “we can’t always assume women are hapless damsels in distress horrified by how they’re objectified.   Women love the sexual interplay they experience with men, and they relish men desiring their beauty.  Why?   Because it is part of their nature.”

Citing a Pews Research study entitled, “On Gender Differences, No Consensus on Nature vs. Nurture,” McAllister noted that Americans valued physical attractiveness in women more than other traits.  Nurturing and empathy were second.  The traits most valued in men were morality and professional success.   Men want women who are attractive and emotionally sensitive, and women want good men who are financially successful.  (Zsa Zsa Gabor famously asked: “I want a man who’s kind and understanding.  Is that too much to ask of a millionaire?”)

Men are Drawn to Beauty Like Moths to a Flame

This is human nature.  McAllister aptly opined, “men are drawn to beauty like moths to a flame, and women want to be the flame.”  Beauty is a source of power, a woman’s “erotic” or sexual power.

“When men are being their sexual selves, drawn to a woman’s beauty, they’re not exploiting women, they are responding to them.”   McAllister continued, “let men love a woman’s beauty and let a woman delight in a man’s competence and success.  This is part of the dance between the masculine and the feminine, and we would be miserable if we stopped it.”  McAllister quoted James Joyce in “Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man” and cited an earlier analog in the Bible’s, “Song of Solomon.”  Adoration of female beauty is archetypal and mythic.  Most heterosexual women want to be desired and acknowledged for their physical beauty.   Can we be honest about that?   This is McAllister’s central point.  The fact that women want to be (and should be) acknowledged for their character and skills is entirely beside the point to this biological truth.

Women are Attracted to Economic Power and Men Will Produce It

McAllister inadvertently identified insights from evolutionary psychology and mate selection science.  She revealed the perennial erotic-economic bargain: the provision of resources (providing and protecting) for sexual access given in return — granting access to female beauty with its inherent signaling of fertility.   Thus, women are inextricably attracted to “economic” power, and men will compete and even conspire to produce it.   That is a fundamental biological and evolutionary truth.  It has been a successful adaptation for thousands of years.

All Male Behavior is a Response to Female Choice

All male behavior is etiologically a response to female choice in mate selection. Erotic power is “first cause” and reigns supreme because it is the power that sustains and populates the human race.  Male status aspiration and power displays are a result of adaptive success in attracting women.  So-called “trophy wives,” or “a beautiful woman on a man’s arm,” are mostly for the sheer pleasure of being next to “the flame” of female radiance.   They are the reward, the raison d’etre.   Men want a beautiful woman on their arm in the spirit of Lord Byron (She Walks in Beauty) and James Joyce.  To the degree this is a status display, it is meant (mostly below awareness) to elicit the response of the next woman.  The goal is more sexual access.  Status is the means.   The current woman and the next woman demonstrate the result of male status.

Power acquisition is an evolutionary adaptation for sexual access to women, but this power can be abused.   David French wrote derisively about men, lamenting sexual harassment in media, politics, and entertainment.   McAllister, to her credit, admitted that this male power, while sometimes off the rails, is also desired by women.   And a women’s beauty is part of the ancient agreement.  As Mae West once said, “it is better to be looked over, than over-looked.”

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text.