Cathy reads books: Warriors and Worriers
A deeply sexist book that made me think deeply about gender
Welcome to Sex and the State, a newsletter about human connection. To support my life’s work, upgrade to a paid subscription, buy a guide, follow me on OnlyFans, follow me on Twitter, support me on Patreon, or just share this post 🙏
~~~~~
(Sorry this is late. I realized right now that I had accidentally scheduled it for 8 pm Central not 8 am.)
Did I want to read Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes, which
recommended? No, my babies. I did not. But did I read it? Yes. Well, I listened to it anyway.I’m not even sure what to say about this book. It seems pretty biased in favor of gender essentialism. Certainly the author isn’t afraid to leave out some nuance in the data to make a point. For instance, she brings up a study showing boys who attend day care show more aggression than boys who don’t. But the overall literature on how daycare impacts kids is overall quite mixed and there is no consensus around any long-term harms.
Another thing I found interesting is that she makes the case that boys are more interested in building things from a young age than girls. To prove this, she lists out activities girls and boys chose. But she describes a girl as “playing with blocks.” So, in other words… building. If you code boys as building but girls who are building as doing something else I have to question your data and therefore your conclusions.
However, at the end of the day, when it comes to many gender differences I don’t actually really think it matters so much whether they arise from some deeply coded evolutionary imperative or it’s simply that most societies pressure gender conformity in the same way.
The reality of the situation is that girls and women act differently than boys and men to at least some degree across a lot of axes. She’s making the case that these behavioral differences are innate and inherited. I’m saying I don’t know and I don’t really care.
The central premise of the book is that boys are evolved to cooperate with other boys to find and fight an “enemy” while girls are evolved to compete with other girls to find and lock down a male provider. Basically, her hot take is that girls and women get credit they don’t deserve for being more social than boys.
So how do you square the idea that men are more social than girls with their propensity to compete with each other and their higher average levels of loneliness? Well, the author says girls and boys are actually equally competitive. But boys incorporate social exclusion into their competitions much less often than girls. Also, boys tend to share activities, not intimacy, with other boys. So they can have a lot of buddies, but still be lonely.
I don’t know, man. It’s an interesting set of ideas. I’m sure what she says has been observed has been observed. But I am left wondering what’s been observed that doesn’t fit her thesis.
The whole thing makes me think about convenient and inconvenient ideas. Convenient ideas support a premise you’ve already accepted.
For example, the likes of Bari Weiss and Jesse Singal are basically saying, “What if gay rights are valid but trans rights are taking things too far?” Well, how convenient would that idea be to someone who is comfortable with gay rights, but trans people squick them out? Or take the whole trend of people trying to prove AI isn’t racist enough. If you really want to say the n-word, it’s very convenient to believe an AI model needs to be able to say it to prevent the world from blowing up.
Convenient ideas gunk up the system and stymie progress.
But sometimes the premise you’ve already accepted is something like “conservatives have an incentive to attribute more gender differences in behavior to biology than socialization in order to uphold the status quo gender hierarchy by convincing people that it is natural and therefore good and that because it is innate they won’t succeed in changing it.”
The fact is that two things can be true at the same time here. Conservatives can be overstating the inheritability of sex differences in behavior while progressives can be understating it. The least-convenient but probably most truth-revealing thing to do is to hear out both sides.
What’s even more difficult than hearing both sides of the gender essentialism debate is discerning the topics on which the right has anything worth hearing to say.
This is an ad! ⬇️ Click on it to support me!
700,000+ Guys read ELEVATOR every damn day
The best eye and brain candy curated from all corners of the web
No news. No politics. No BS.
Just the good stuff
100% Free
Thanks for the book review!
And yes, the question "what has been observed that doesn't fit your thesis?" is the right one. I'm reading Jon Haidt's Substack series now on the impact of social media on mental health, and I appreciate that he leads off with a discussion of some studies that show no impact. He may still be using motivated reasoning when he talks about why he thinks those studies are flawed or superseded, but the fact that he's putting them front and center in the first place, not buried in a footnote or glossed over entirely, already puts him in 95+ percentile for truth seeking practice.
And for the same reason I appreciate your leading with substantive criticisms and only then discussing convenience/inconvenience of factual claims. I try to stay away from the "wouldn't it be awfully convenient for your worldview to believe that" kind of argument for just the reason I think you're getting at here: we all have things we want to believe about the world, and we all put our mental thumbs on the scale when it comes to observations that reinforce vs challenging those things, and pointing out when your outgroup does that can easily slide into implicitly flattering yourself that you're the exception. Man, the stories I'm sure we both could tell about libertarians-- including, certainly, my own more-doctrinairely-libertarian former self-- making factual claims that in retrospect were completely ridiculous, but made it so much easier to believe that our ideology didn't come with hard tradeoffs!