Below, Richard Bribiescas, author of Men: Evolutionary and Life History, responds to Harvey Mansfield's review of his book in a February 26 article for Forbes.com.
Mansfield says that in my book "nurture loses to nature." I disagree.
On page 12 I say "The age-old argument of nature versus nurture is
misguided. An organism's physiology (nature) is in many ways meant to
respond to a changing environment (nurture). An unyielding physiology
is seldom advantageous since the environment is never static. In other
words, are human males the product of nature or nurture? The answer is
yes."
He also quotes my statement "It doesn't take a degree in biology to notice that men and women are utterly different" but omits the rest of the paragraph. In full, the statement reads "It doesn't take a degree in biology to notice that men and women are utterly different. Physical and behavioral contrasts pervade everyday life. Men, on the average, are taller and physically stronger than women. Men don't have babies. Men make up half of the human population, but they are involved in far more than half of humankind's destructive and violent behavior. Men age differently than women do, and men die sooner and at a more rapid rate than women".
He then points out that a "cultural anthropologist, believing that culture, not biology, makes us different, would never make this statement." And he says that I am "spitting into the prevailing wind of feminism and gender-neutrality in Western societies." Well, again, I need to point out a comment I make early in the book "I don't think any biological anthropologist would deny that cultural and social forces have a tremendous effect on how humans, including males, behave and how their physiologies respond to environmental challenges." And on page 12, I also summarize how biology and Darwinism has been misused in the name of social and political agendas. This is indeed an important point to recognize to move the field forward and to have an honest and open discussion.
As to whether I am 'spitting' into the wind of feminism and western gender-neutrality, I'm not sure what Professor Mansfield means here, unless he is taking a swipe at my research which involves the measurement of hormones in saliva. If that is so, well played -- he succeeded in getting a chuckle out of me. More importantly, it might be useful to read the wonderful works of my colleagues who contribute steadfast breezes to the prevailing wind of feminism. Their scholarly works are evident throughout my bibliography.
I am flattered that Professor Mansfield has used my book as the basis for an overarching critique of the ideas of Darwin and numerous colleagues who make the study of evolution such a vibrant scientific discipline. I do not think scientific authority has anything to do with ethics. My book's purpose was to ask readers to consider information that is supported by mounds of scientific research. The ultimate authority lies with the readers who must employ their own capacity for critical thought and decide for themselves whether the perspective presented in this book has any merit.
-- Richard Bribiescas, March 2, 2009
||| More on Men: Evolutionary and Life History