Melvin Konner, Emory professor of anthropology and behavioral biology

Colleges and Universities A-Z Emory University
1

Melvin Konner wrote a controversial article recently entitled, “The End of Male Supremacy” http://chronicle.com/article/The-End-of-Male-Supremacy/228769?cid=trend_right_wc

Just wanted to share this.

Some of his claims and arguments from the article (in order):

“Women are not equal to men; they are superior in many ways, and in most ways that will count in the future. It is not just a matter of culture or upbringing. It is a matter of chromosomes, genes, hormones, and nerve circuits. It is not mainly because of how experience shapes women, but because of intrinsic differences in the body and the brain. Women are superior in most ways that matter now.”

I will stop here, since he continues to provide little to no citations for anything.

MODERATOR’S NOTE: I deleted the many quotes that were shown here, because the Terms of Service state that only two or three sentences from outside sources can be quoted.

2

Not that he needed to provide citations for that kind of article, but you get what I mean. I wonder how many people would want to take a course of his after reading something like that? (Answer: More than you think.)

3

It’s an opinion piece. And, my opinion is that he is essentially correct. I’m still undecided on the part about it being the end of male supremacy, though.

4

It isn’t politically correct, but it certainly acknowledges that there are differences between the sexes. However, everything is context dependent. Like the advantages that women or men have may be more relevant in certain cultures and social contexts than others. From a scientific standpoint it is kind of interesting to ponder the idea (that has been proposed by many scientists, particularly geneticists) that suggests that over a HUGE (we’re talking on an evolutionary scale here so at least in the magnitude of millions of years) period of time, the Y chromosome may just disappear. What I don’t remember is whether certain sex-determining genes are on it or not. I actually kind of doubt it as it relatively inert (lacking in “active” genetic material). In addition, in the past, transpositions have occurred that essentially migrated at least some genetic material from the Y to X. Maybe humans will end up with a genetic model similar to certain other mammals where males simply have a single X if that theory has any validity.

Either way, the science doesn’t necessarily dictate that males will cease to exist, Y chromosome or not. As for social superiority, I have serious doubts about that one. Even in Western countries, male dominance and its remnants are pretty obvious…this clearly isn’t going away anytime soon. Also, he probably stated things in this fashion for exactly the reason you posted this, shock value! He wanted to get attention to some of his claims regardless of how uncomfortable they are.

5

@JustOneDad There isn’t a right men have that women don’t have in the United States and most Western countries. Women, however, have the right to vote without signing up for draft, they have the right to gender quotas in certain occupations, right to female-only scholarships despite women making up the majority of college students, right to not have their children taken away after divorce, etc. Also, the “dominant” gender make up most of workplace deaths, truck drivers, garbage collectors, soldiers, security guards, sewage workers, oil rig workers, miners, construction workers, homeless people, suicide deaths, but nobody cares about that. No, we need to prioritize worrying about women being underrepresented in STEM and the very, very few men who make up the majority of CEOs and politicians. Because the “dominant,” “privileged” gender can go collect garbage and enjoy being the vast majority of homeless people.

But that is just my opinion.

How did I do? Did I do a good job mimicking Konner? Ehh, probably not.

@bernie12 Well, men do live about 5 years less on average than women in the U.S.

I am not sure if he wrote it like that on purpose for shock value or if he was being honest about his views. I do wonder what would happen if a man wrote it with the gender reversed. Something tells me it won’t end well for him.

6

It wouldn’t…but the same could be said for women who decided to put men on a pedestal or argue for more traditional gender roles that may, for example, relegate women to housewife status.

7

Housewife status as in, “Marriage is like a workshop: the man works, the woman shops”? Back then women had to break their backs doing housework because of lack of technology, but not today–today it would really be like the “man works, woman shops” model if we go back to traditional gender roles. The world of work that women protested and demanded to be allowed entry wasn’t as glamorous as they thought it would be. Men weren’t going on vacation while women were oppressed by her twirl-mustached husbands who gave her his money after he came home. Working was an obligation for men. And men were also held accountable for their wives’ actions (his wife screwed up, he assumed the consequences) responsible for his family, responsible for the provision of food and resources for the children. Men, however, were compensated for their enormous responsibilities by getting bigger rewards than women, while women, who were sheltered from the real world to a large extent and didn’t have to deal with the risks and stresses of men’s world, a.k.a. the world of paradise where men made their money and refused to allow women entry and 99.99% of men showed up 15 minutes early for work because it was so fine and dandy, were “rewarded” accordingly by their lack of power in society.

In other words, men had all the responsibilities and took most of the risks in society including war (lots of wars back then), therefore, they reaped the biggest rewards as well. Women had lots of responsibilities and were rewarded accordingly by the man who gave her money, shelter, clothes, food, etc. but assumed very little of the risks, so the power they had in society were also small. Women also had to raise the children–and weren’t “paid labor” because the man was already “paying” her with money, shelter, clothes, food, luxuries, etc., or at least in theory.

I’m not advocating for traditional gender roles, by the way. It worked long ago for survival but now, with the abundance of food and resources, we don’t need it anymore–if we ever even needed it to begin with. The problem is that all you hear today are the advantages men had and the disadvantages women had, while ignoring the other half of the picture: the disadvantages and enormous responsibilities, risks, and obligations men were subjected to and expected to uphold, as well as the advantages women enjoyed.

8

Apologies for the bad grammar. Can’t write to save my life right now.

What I wrote above doesn’t apply to all men and women, however–women who were poor had to work outside of their homes as well. Men also didn’t have the right to vote until they started getting drafted in many places (e.g. U.K.)–the right to vote was granted in exchange, not because they happened to be born with a penis. In the U.S., most (white) men couldn’t vote until the abolition of property qualifications from 1792 (Kentucky) to 1856 (North Carolina). Wealthy women also could vote if they owned property, IIRC.

9

There are still some women that, even today, argue the tyranny of any sort of domestic work, especially by women. Again, I mentioned it a while back, the idea of socialist feminism. They tend to try to tie the deeds of the household not only to oppression of women, but to what they consider as unfortunate social and economic consequences.

10

Well, for one thing, he’d be incorrect and wouldn’t have much evidence to support his contentions.

11

@bernie12 They would say the same thing if the roles were reversed, if women were forced to work for a living not just for herself but for her entire family, as men did back then. Not every man wants to work for a living, not every woman wants to work for a living. A lot of men and women don’t want to work for a living–they’d quit their jobs as soon as they win the lottery. But even if women do win the lottery, they still have to do domestic work. It’s inescapable unless they make the men do it for them, in which case (to them) it is suddenly no longer “tyranny of domestic work” because the person doing it now has a penis instead of a vagina.

You hear them complaining about domestic work but the alternative is breaking their backs outside of the home trying to put food on the table, as most men weren’t rich. Asking him, after he comes home from work, to do 50% of housework when she’s been home all day is BS. It’s not like men went on vacation while telling their wives to go to the kitchen and clean the house.

@JustOneDad My point was that if a man or a woman argues that men are inferior, nobody bats an eye, but if a man argues that women are inferior, he is a misogynist, sexist, woman-hating piece of @#$%. See the double standard?

12

@CrispyBullet : Yes, the same author I allude to (whose name I already forgot) does often make “right to not work” arguments (again mainly with respect to women), whether it be domestic or non.

13

No.

14

@bernie12 Men never had the right not to work (does obligation automatically equal privilege?). In the “patriarchy”, women had low authority/power but was balanced by low responsibility/accountability (e.g. husband being responsible for his wife’s actions–if a man gets abused by his wife, it’s his fault; if she spends all his money in one night, he gets held accountable) while men had high authority/power balanced by high responsibility/accountability. Strict division of gender roles and labor.

It’s one of the reasons 80% of women in Saudi Arabia was in support of not being able to drive–because while they had less rights and less power than men, they also had less responsibility. Men work (not very fun jobs) and then give their money to their wives after they come home. But, as usual, it’s always the “women are oppressed, men screw over women” when it comes to the Middle East. Funny how that works: the “oppressors” would hand over their money to the “oppressed” and let the “oppressed” manage the money.

15

I wouldn’t go there…again, more staunch feminists would argue in return that things like home making and caring for the children are indeed a crap ton of work. To suggest that it is a low responsibility job may be missing the mark or lacking nuance. To be blunt, while the male was the breadwinner, many men would hardly participate in child rearing back in the day. I think there was a reason infanticide was more common back in the day (like industrial revolution in many western countries and other stages of development). Child rearing is simply not easy. The question comes down to whether or not one believes that manual labor (or any labor to gain capital) is more difficult or places a higher level of responsibility than some domestic things. One could maybe argue this in the case of a socioeconomically well-off household back them, but for working class and the working poor, both parties (male and female) were ultimately in hell.

As for the money analogy: Well, it is the breadwinner’s money, so if they are taken advantage of, they get blamed. Period. The only difference back then is that males were basically always the primary breadwinners. Today, a woman would be considered a gold-digger in that case. However a woman who wasn’t careful would be considered stupid as well if a guy took advantage of them financially. That one I wouldn’t mention simply because there wasn’t enough relationships or households to test the reverse.

16

@bernie12 Just because “staunch feminists” argue that does not, by itself, mean it’s right, true, sound, credible or accurate. Anyway, low responsibility, low risk. Risk matters, forgot to mention that. No childrearing can be done without someone making money, however. The man did do childrearing, actually: By providing food, shelter, medicine, and clothes for the children. Hardly participate in direct childrearing? I’m not sure about that. Most criminals in the U.S. are raised by single mothers. No-fault divorce is not helping.

“I think there was a reason infanticide was more common back in the day (like industrial revolution in many western countries and other stages of development). Child rearing is simply not easy.”

I don’t think childrearing is easy either. However, just because women and feminists complain a lot and loudly about how hard childrearing is does not mean it’s necessarily harder. If men did most of the childrearing, there’d be much less complaining (men are expected to just shut up, “man up”, and take it), which would give the impression that childrearing is not so hard after all.

" The question comes down to whether or not one believes that manual labor (or any labor to gain capital) is more difficult or places a higher level of responsibility than some domestic things."

Depends on what time period. If it is 1960s+ (with tech to help with housework), I’d say domestic work was easier. If it’s 21st century, domestic work no questions asked. Just ask the single, happily unmarried men out there. They do 100% of the housework and 100% of cooking.

However, domestic duties do have much lower risks than risking your reputation and you and your family’s way of life in the real world. Higher risk needs to be balanced by higher reward.

“As for the money analogy: Well, it is the breadwinner’s money, so if they are taken advantage of, they get blamed. Period.”

So the victim of betrayal is at fault? If it’s as simple as you say who is to blame, then I’d say he keep 100% of the money and the woman doesn’t get a cent and she has to keep her mouth shut because it’s his money, as he’s 100% responsible for it and therefore also has 100% right to do with the money as he wishes, including not giving her a cent, with moral justification. Black and white. Period. One is not obligated to take risks that one would have to take full responsibility for.

Women are now given the moral high ground when it comes to the “problems” of traditionalism, but I have not made up my own mind about it. The picture is not as that clear.

17

Did I say it was true? I don’t remember me saying it was true…all I can tell you is what the arguments are. My own opinions will be more nuanced than taking very specific positions. And as for the money? Most people, as you even suggested do blame the victim of betrayal in that case. I was citing how I doubt that, especially today, this phenomenon has a huge gender bias.

18

@bernie12 “Did I say it was true? I don’t remember me saying it was true…all I can tell you is what the arguments are.” I cannot hear your tone or read your face, so when I read it, that’s how I ended up interpreting, as you kept showing me feminist arguments instead of your own and I assumed those were the ones you took. Thanks for clarifying.

“My own opinions will be more nuanced than taking very specific positions.” I haven’t taken “very specific” positions either, as I’ve pointed out, “Women are now given the moral high ground when it comes to the “problems” of traditionalism, but I have not made up my own mind about it. The picture is not as that clear.”

“And as for the money? Most people, as you even suggested do blame the victim of betrayal in that case. I was citing how I doubt that, especially today, this phenomenon has a huge gender bias.” This is what you said: “As for the money analogy: Well, it is the breadwinner’s money, so if they are taken advantage of, they get blamed. Period. The only difference back then is that males were basically always the primary breadwinners.” You said it as if that’s exactly what you believed, as if you’re the one who took that position. Thanks for the clarification.

19

Again. I don’t really take staunch positions on these issues because I don’t actually know quite how I feel about them…I more or less call BS on a case by case basis despite being relatively liberal overall. I don’t quite buy in to all of the oversensitivity I see when it comes to certain issues that the left holds so dearly, but I rarely agree with many conservative positions on social issues.

Also, again the money. It is my “observation” that said person is usually blamed (the breadwinner). I hope you realize (as your thanks for the clarification suggests) that I don’t necessarily blame them. In some cases I do, in many I do not. While I don’t appreciate slippery slope arguments that much, I do worry that the position of someone who agrees that the person taking advantage of someone should be unilaterally blamed (no, I am not saying you suggested this) is taking a position similar to those who “burned witches at the stake” centuries ago especially when framed in the context of gender roles (the idea of women as dangerous seductresses that were responsible for the evils or sketchy behavior by men). Now, this is indeed an opinion or at least a concern of mine when the idea of victim blaming comes up and you already no how “grey” and shaky I am when it comes to things like sexual assault and victim blaming as we kind of discussed it before via PM.

20

@bernie12 I’m glad we understand each other.

Not everyone cares about grey areas or nuances, however. The media today are unlikely to portray women as the equivalent of “seductresses” or “witches”. When it comes to sexual assault and rape, if a 40-year-old man having sex with a 15-year-old girl, it’s reported in media as “rape” (and that “he should rot in hell for eternity”) but if the genders were reversed, it’s “40-year-old woman has sex with a 15-year-old boy” and not “rape” or “sexual assault” (he “wanted it” and is “probably getting high-fives” because men and boys want sex all the time, anywhere, any day, with anybody, right?) The media is generally not interesting in grey areas, they want a good headline and a catchy story. Men victimizing women make good headlines and generate “good” press. Women victimizing men, not as much. That’s my opinion so far.