The Sexes Physical and Mental Differences



Although it will be anathema to sex-melders, there are givens in nature.  Males and females of most species are vastly different physically and anatomically, and – especially in the human species – emotionally and psychologically.  The differences – averages, I hasten to add – are biologically rooted, and for those who believe in The Creator, divinely ordained.

There are obvious, inherent natural male and female characteristics, “as any fool kin plainly see” (apologies to Li’l Abner).  To deny this is to deny science, behavioral and biological, as well as the evidence of one’s own powers of observation.  Jonathan Swift said “There is none so blind as they that won’t see.”  Even Betty Friedan has somersaulted, admitting “Women aren’t male clones.”

An enormous literature on sexual differences has been piling up for 30 years or more.  One would be hard pressed to find in biological literature an instance of identical behavior of the males and females of any species.  Sure, lionesses do most of the hunting and killing, but that relates to my wife doing the grocery shopping.  Lions still rule the pride.  Despite the five pound handicap in favor of fillies (female horses) racing against colts (male horses), only three fillies ever won the Kentucky Derby: Regret (1915), Genuine Risk (1980) and Winning Colors (1988).  The fact that these universals transcend divergent animal groups and human cultures suggests that there must be more than a cultural basis for these sex differences.  These distinctive, natural characteristics, predominant in each sex, are the result of eons of evolution, not of recent adverse sociological discrimination.

Adult men are on average 10 percent larger than women, with twice the muscle mass of women, and perform two to four times better in tests of strength.  Only the top 5 percent of women can perform at the male median.  The typical woman in her twenties has the aerobic capacity of a 50-year-old man.  Males grow facial hair.  Baby boys are usually larger and heavier than baby girls.  Additionally, men’s maximum oxygen intake is higher than women’s, and they bruise less easily.  On the other hand, women average 5 inches shorter, have half the upper body strength and lighter skeletons.  The primary reason for these differences lie in the male hormone, androgen.  “Frailty, woman is thy name.” said Shakespeare.  In view of these facts, and considering their proclivity to get pregnant, it makes little sense to use women in combat.

Women have more resistance to disease, possibly because of larger cortin-producing adrenal glands and to having two “X” sex chromosomes, instead of one X and one Y chromosome as do men.  Every cubic centimeter of women’s blood has a million-and-a-half fewer red blood corpuscles than men’s.  Women’s blood is 80 percent water; men’s blood is 75 percent water.  Women’s hearts (which average two ounces smaller) beat 8O times a minute, men’s 72.  In relation to her size, a woman’s stomach is larger than a man’s, so she gets hungry more often.  According to Jennifer Virgas, writing for Discovery News on Aug. 2, 2004, men and women see colors differently.  Women are far less likely to be color-blind than men — one man out of 25 is color-blind, but only one woman in 250.  A smaller portion of men’s bodies than of women’s is erogenous.  Females’ tear ducts are almost twice as active as those of men; they cry more frequently and more easily than men.  Barton Goldsmith, Ph.D., MFT claims that women speak at a rate of 250 words per minute; men speak at 125.  Although men’s vocal chords are longer and thicker, women on average speak 25,000 words per day, contrasted with a man's average 12,000 (perhaps that’s why they usually get the last word).

Men’s qualities are positive, overt, and easier to define.  Man is essentially active; woman essentially passive.  Women’s qualities are more subtle and intangible, but equally important.  The “feminine mystique” is a compendium of characteristics not nearly so undesirable as claimed by Betty Friedan XE "Friedan" .  Edythe Cudlipp admits that “men are the logical sex and women are the emotional sex.”  Writer Dennis Prager said “The emotionality of the women jurors in the Menendez brothers’ trials is exemplary: all six women jurors in the Erik Menendez trial voted to acquit him of the murder of his father (all six males voted guilty of murder).  A virtually identical breakdown by sex took place in brother Lyle Menendez’ trial for the murder of their mother.  The women all had compassion for the brothers despite their confessions to the shotgun murders of their parents.”  Prager continues, “Virtually every car I ever have seen display the bumper sticker ‘War is not the answer’ was driven by a woman.”  That sentiment embodies leftist feminine emotionality.  Ann Coulter – a brilliant political analyst – said, “This is what happens when you allow women to think about public policy.”

Researchers who have explored the subject of sex differences from every conceivable angle and organ say that, yes there are a host of discrepancies between men and women: in their average scores on tests of quantitative skills, in their attitudes toward math and science, in the architecture of their brains, in the way they metabolize medications, including those that affect the brain. Millions of men and relatively few women subscribe to sports magazines or watch athletic events on TV.

Experiments at Baltimore’s Johns Hopkins Hospital, and in Russia and Britain, summarized in a U.N.E.S.C.O. report, indicate that intelligence is a factor of the quantity of male sex hormones in the fetus.  Male testosterone provides extra aggression and drive, resulting in achievement.  The large mental difference between men and women is scientifically explained in the book Brain Sex, published by Michael Joseph in London, England.  The information therein was verified in the Sept. '92 issue of Scientific American Special Issue-Mind and Brain...Sex...

The rhythms and compulsions of the sexes are dissimilar.  Men’s brains are more compartmentalized, designed for single-minded tasks such as hunting.  Author George Gilder says “… men need jobs, both for psychological affirmation and for socialization, far more than do women”.  Dr. Florence A. Ruderman, Assistant Professor of Sociology at Brooklyn College in New York, claimed that males, not females, have the greater psychological and biological needs to achieve and dominate.

Normal men desire to mate with beautiful women (I will tip a pretty waitress much more than my wife will), while normal women desire to mate with rich, powerful men.  Dr. Paul Cameron, a Maryland psychologist, reported to the Midwestern Psychological Association that, based on his exhaustive research, “Men like sex a lot more than women do.”  Mating with beautiful women has pitfalls, however.  While some can be intelligent, they are in the minority.  We men are fools for beauty.  Though one must admire The Creator’s handiwork, pretty women without the intelligence to handle those looks are like kids with loaded guns – very dangerous.  Getting by on looks alone, many have escaped the need to develop intelligence.  The man whose wife is a shrew deserves her, just as citizens deserve their corrupt officials.

Differences between the sexes have also been scientifically established by two well-qualified female researchers, Professor Eleanor Emmons Maccoby, Chairman of Psychology Department at Stanford University, and Carol Nagy Jacklin, Research Associate at Stanford University.

Although the Stanford tests were restricted to children, where the differences are slighter, the findings were that boys are more aggressive than girls, girls have greater verbal ability than boys, boys excel in visual-spatial ability and in mathematical ability, boys are more active, boys are more competitive, boys are more dominant, and girls are more compliant.

The Denver-based Education Commission of the States conducted a government-financed study known as the National Assessment of Educational Progress.  After analyzing tests given to nearly 900,000 students and young adults across the U.S., the commission’s researchers concluded that men have a clear edge over women in most areas of academic achievement.

Like some other studies, the commission’s report shows that in science, mathematics, social studies and citizenship — four of the eight areas studied — the sexes are roughly equal at age 9.  But by age 13, girls fall behind in these areas of study in a relative decline that continues through adolescence and into adulthood.  In reading ability and knowledge of literature, girls are ahead of boys until about age 17, but the same pattern of relative decline shows up as they grow older.  The National Assessment finds the “male lead in mathematics ‘overwhelming.’  Nine-year-old girls do as well as boys in basic arithmetic but lag later in geometry and exercises dealing with measurement.  Strangely, though girls can match boys in arithmetic and are better than boys at reading, they do worse on “word problems” involving simple computations, such as determining the lowest per-ounce price for a box of rice …”

Only in writing ability and music do females outperform males in later years.  Liberator writer Muldoon X joked that if women were as intelligent as men they wouldn’t need affirmative action.  Such jokes, and that’s all they are, are not well-received.

There is persistent finding that men tend to prefer working with ‘things,’ avoiding fields with a high social component, while women tend to prefer working with people and in fields with a high social dimension.  The entire anthropological record offers not a single notable example of a society in which women have better spatial-reasoning skills and men the better verbal skills, in which females are fixated on objects and how to manipulate them and men on feelings and sensibilities.

A simple experiment should end any speculation that hand/eye coordination differences between the sexes is a learned thing would be to have a dozen male and a dozen female basketball players line up at a free-throw line, and each take a dozen shots at the basket.  Better yet, use non-basketball-players.  I think you’ll find that the males score more often.

Some excellent works prove the distinctions: As Nature Made Him by John Colapinto (HarperCollins), Taking Sex Differences Seriously by Steven E. Rhoads (Encounter Books), The Biological Basis for Gender-Specific Behavior by Gregg Johnson a Professor of Biology at Bethel College in Minnesota, and Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood.

Even less desirable human behaviors such as rape, violence, and warfare, are often mere extremes or mutations of our very sexual essence.  Johnson tells us that “Among most higher social mammals, males are more aggressive than females and take dominant leadership roles in social groups.  Males are more territorial.  Males tend to build hierarchical social order.  Females of most groups studied are not as driven by competitive, territorial or hierarchical urges… [and are] less confrontive and combative and more interested in building and maintaining social bonds.  They are peacemakers and conformists to group expectations.  Anthropologists find similar kinds of universal sex-specific behaviors among human cultures.  Of two hundred fifty cultures studied, males dominate in almost all.”  These differences are natural, “hard-wired,” and fundamental to the survival and progress of the human race.  It is only logical that there be separate functions determined by these differences.

The biological polarity between the sexes is essential to life itself.  Indeed past civilizations that lost these distinctions have ceased to exist.  In a survey of 2,000 different cultures Charles Winick, Professor of Anthropology and Sociology at the City University of New York, found that some fifty-five were characterized by sexual ambiguity.  Not one of those cultures has survived.  This is further corroborated by studies of eighty primitive and civilized societies conducted by Oxford Professor J. D. Umuin, and by the studies of Harvard Professor Emeritus Carle Zimmerman.

Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family in his best seller Bringing up Boys writes:

The unisex movement prevailed until the late 1980s when it fell victim to medical technology.  The development of magnetic resonance imaging and PET (positron emission tomography) scans allowed physicians and physiologists to examine the functioning of the human brain in much greater detail.  What they found totally destroyed the assertions of Feminists.  Men’s and women’s brains looked very distinct when examined in a laboratory.  Under proper stimulation they “lit up” different areas, revealing unique neurological processes.  It turns out that male and female brains are ‘hardwired’ differently, which along with hormonal factors accounts for behavioral and attitudinal characteristics associated traditionally with masculinity and femininity...  Unfortunately, the ideas that were spawned in the seventies and perpetuated in a different form today are deeply ingrained in the culture, even though they have never made sense.  Many parents are reluctant or ill-equipped to teach their boys how they are different from girls or what their masculinity really means.  There is also a new source of confusion emanating from the powerful ‘gay’ lobby.

Feminists, mod/libs and homosexuals to the contrary, the sexes are not interchangeable.  Androgyny is abnormal.  Granted, some persons are mentally or hormonally of the opposite sex.  On the rare occasion when a woman does become a high achiever she usually almost reaches masculinity, losing her femininity.  It is because of her loss of femininity that men do not feel attracted to such a woman.  It has nothing to do with the fact that she is successful.  As mentioned earlier in Part I Sex Roles…, some women can out-lift some men.  Others can meet the rigid qualifications of an airline pilot.  Astronaut Eileen Collins seems to be such a woman; yet I’ll bet my bottom dollar there were better qualified male candidates available when she was picked for the job.  Even she cut short her career to return to hearth and home.

This is not to insist that all humans exhibit these differences.  Stereotypes aren’t always valid.  There are exceptions to every rule which make strict adherence to norms an oversimplified and unfair solution.  Because some women can match some men in some respects, it is illogical – reasoning from the specific to the general – to claim or imply that all women can do so.

Incredible pressure is put upon government agencies, like NASA, to conform to affirmative action quotas.  I recall a very exceptional lady, one of my flight students with a dual personality.  Sometimes she acted like a second mate and was better at business than most men; but when she wanted to be feminine she appeared highly attractive.  Recently I flew on an airplane staffed by a male steward and a female First Officer.  Neither exhibited outward signs of hormonal imbalance, but it might be interesting to peek inside their heads.

A couple other personal anecdotes regarding gender perceptions may be instructive.  An airline stewardess friend of mine says that stewardesses are much more amenable to taking orders from a male steward than from other stewardesses.  As a member of the local American Legion Honor Guard, I once attended an elementary school patriotic program.  Female teachers had some minor difficulty controlling a few kids, who settled down immediately when a male teacher approached.

Male dominance is universal, and most women want their men to be more dominant, not less.  According to the psychologist Karl Menninger, for every woman who complains to her shrink that her man is a brute there are a dozen who complain that he is a wimp — incapable of acting like a father who takes charge, accepts responsibility and gets things done.  Surveys have shown that most college women prefer dominant and aggressive men.  Oh, for the days when men were men and women were glad of it!

Send mail to Webmaster  with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2017 Men's Defense Association
Last modified: March 30, 2017