Ruth Moulton

MY basic premise about the nature of women is that they are not the same as men, either biologically or psychologically, but the acknowledgement of difference does not imply superiority or inferiority. As to the biological component, it is the result of a long evolutionary process and since both sexes are necessary to the perpetuation of the species, how can one say that one is more necessary or more valuable? Warren Gadpaille¹ has recently summarized the research on the physiology of maleness and femaleness, showing how the early embryo is more like the future female until the action of male hormone at a critical stage in intrauterina life produces male genital morphology which will permit future male sexual behavior. Males are more difficult to produce and die more readily even before they grow out of infancy. These are facts but allow wide difference in interpretation. The female can be seen as stronger, more viable, more basic, or as more primitive and less evolved. Even with all the new knowledge about sexual differentiation and the fact that it influences hypothalamic as well as genital function, Gadpaille feels that adult sexual behavior, unless there is some gross physical pathology, is much more a matter of learning, child-rearing, techniques, cultural pressures and expectations.

As to psychological differences, cultural attitudes play such a significant role that they overwhelm whatever effects are more directly related to anatomy and endocrinology. The culture determines how we interpret biological differences; how they are exploited, repressed, enhanced, valued. What is attractive feminine behavior varies almost as much from generation to generation as does dress style, although basic concepts of “femininity” have had a consistent core throughout Western patriarchal culture. This is best summarized in the old saying, “It's a man's world. Woman's place is in the home.” Elizabeth Janeway² has recently written a book under this title which she calls a “study