Helena Cronin is the co-director of London School of
Economics's Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Sciences, and the
author of "The Ant and the Peacock", rated as one of the best
nine books of 1992 by the NYT Book Review. She has some relevant things
to say about the differences in the way that males and females regard
jobs. Here is a brief excerpt from a recent interview, when asked what
use evolutionary science was in looking at social and employment
policies:
<<<<
How could responsible social policy *not* be informed by an evolutionary
understanding of sex differences? All policy-making should incorporate an
understanding of human nature, and that means both female and male
nature. Remember that if policy-makers want to change behaviour, they
have to change the environment appropriately. And what's appropriate can
be very different for women and for men.
The differential impact of unemployment on men and women is considerable.
For a woman, unemployment means loss of a job; for a man, it means loss
of status. And this difference combines with other sex differences to
take women and men down very different pathways once the workplace door
closes on them.
So, for example, a low-status man is a low-status mate; he'll have more
difficulty finding a partner. And more difficulty keeping one. Couples in
which the wife earns more than the husband are more likely to divorce.
Domestic violence stems from male sexual jealousy; low status is a potent
factor for moving the psychological machinery of jealousy into high gear.
And it turns out that misattributed paternity is as minimal as 1% among
very high-status American males but up to 30% among unemployed, deprived,
inner-city males. What's more, as in many other species, being low on the
hierarchy has a demonstrable clinical impact on men's health and
longevity.
Again as in other species, when the future looks inauspicious, males are
more likely to take risks. If 'criminal genes' turn up next to
'unemployment genes' in men, it's because a distinctive male psychology
is making the links. Anyone who really cares about unemployment and its
appalling social ramifications shouldn't be sniping at evolutionary
theory; they should be embracing it. It's absolutely indispensable for
getting a handle on the relevant causal connections.
Sex-blind social policy isn't impartia. It isn't more fair; it's less so.
Why, for example, assume that girls and boys learn in the same way? If
you look, say, at maths -- the academic area in which sex differences are
most extreme -- the boys' advantage apparently rests on their innate
superiority in mechanical and 3D thinking. Now, there's some evidence
that girls improve considerably if they're taught in ways that circumvent
this. That's the kind of thing that a fair education policy should be
concerned with. And the same goes for the law, for the workplace, for
economic planning -- for whatever field social policy is being devised.
We're not an androgynous species. Fair policies should reflect that
fact.
We're living in a rapidly changing world. There's the increase in male
unemployment. There's women finally having the resources to go it alone
as parents. And women finding that, as their own status rises, the pool
of potential partners shrinks. There are increasing inequalities,
consigning substantial proportions of men to permanently low status in a
'winner-take-all' game. How will our Stone Age minds react to these
changes? What will be significant for men and for women? Does Darwinian
theory have an impact on social policy? How could it not?
Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England
