New Book



$21.95 hardcover · 224 pages
9978-1594037641-January 2015


The theme of The Great Divide is that the populations of the democratic world, from Boston to Berlin, Vancouver to Venice, are becoming increasingly divided from within, due to a growing ideological incompatibility between modern liberalism and conservatism. This is partly due to a complex mutation in the concept of liberal democracy itself, and the resulting divide is now so wide that those holding to either philosophy on a whole range of topics: on democracy, on reason, on abortion, on human nature, on homosexuality and gay marriage, on freedom, on the role of courts … and much more, can barely speak with each other without outrage (the favorite emotional response from all sides). Clearly, civil conversation at the surface has been failing -- and that could mean democracy is failing.

This book is an effort to deepen the conversation. It is written for the non-specialist, and aims to reveal the less obvious underlying ideological forces and misconceptions that cause the conflict and outrage at the surface -- not with any expectation the clash of values will evaporate, but rather that a deeper understanding will generate a more intelligent and civil conversation.

As an aid to understanding, the book contains a handful of Tables directly comparing modern liberal and conservative views across a range of fundamental moral and political “issues” so that curious readers can answer the book’s main question: “Where Do You Stand?” An interesting result in testing this exercise has been the number of people who find they “think” one way, but “live” another.    


Good Reading
Essays (37)

The Feminist Pay-Equity Scam

             Almost everyone misunderstands so-called “pay-equity.” They think it is a fair-sounding idea that basically says any two human beings, regardless of gender, should be paid the same if they do the same work. But pay-equity is not about that at all.

             The principle of paying people the same wage for the same work has long since been accepted as fair by almost everyone (although some economists still say that even this custom limits the freedom of individuals to offer their services for less, if they so desire, and is thus a form of minimum-wage legislation that discriminates against the very poor). But radical feminists are not satisfied with the rule that women and men must be paid the same wage for the same work. They want them to be paid the same for different work if they can show that different kinds of work have the same “value.”    

              For example, if a government consultant can show that a female computer-operator’s job has the same “value” as a male truck-driver’s job, then the government will order that the two must be paid the same. Presto – gender equality in the market place! But there’s a twist, of course: this applies only to women. If he makes more than she does, she can complain to the government, get the “value” of her job assessed in her favour, and then force her boss to pay her the same as the truck driver. But if she makes more than he does, he cannot use the same argument to force his boss to pay him the same as her! But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s backtrack for a minute.

            As it turns out, even though men and women don’t very often choose to do the same kinds of work, feminists insist that as a class they ought to have the same earnings in the free market as men. But they don’t. Men in free economies, as a class, earn more than women as a class. So radical feminists have decided that any difference between the pay of men and the pay of women must be due to “sex discrimination.” Once having decided this, they quickly began stigmatizing the kinds of work women tend to prefer as “job ghettos,” or “Pink Collar Ghettos.” They conveniently ignored the fact that dental hygienists and legal secretaries, for example, are 99 percent female occupations and have very high starting salaries; but these jobs do not qualify as ghettos. In other words, if you train and strive for a high-paying job, you are assumed to be free; but if you take a low-paying or part-time job, or simply don’t wish to earn any more than you now do, you are assumed to be suffering exploitation and discrimination. Once radical feminists succeeded in selling the government on the idea that any difference was really due to discrimination, the course was clear. They then had to set about forcing a world of otherwise free people to conform to the feminist vision of fairness. Despite the insult to the intelligence of free working women everywhere that this attitude suggests, their approach was very effective.

              Here’s the radical feminist’s economic formula so far: Men and Women are the same, but because they are not paid the same when doing different work that we believe to have the same value, sex discrimination must be operating. Therefore evidence of discrimination is required; then a program for correcting it; and finally, someone to implement, finance, and police a corrective social program. So . . . the proof was the invention of a so-called “wage-gap”; the program was so-called “pay-equity”; the Sugar Daddy (as always) would be … the State. Canada’s Pay Police would monitor all this. And they have done so.

            Truth to say, one could marvel at the implacable and devious cleverness of the whole thing—if it weren’t so dishonest and such an assault on our free way of life. The unfortunate result, and the deception of the public required to bring it about (Canadians have never understood clearly what the term “pay-equity” means) is that many jurisdictions in Canada and America have the dubious distinction of having passed into law the most draconian pay-equity legislation in the free world, and have completely hoodwinked the paying public in the process. Why so? Because …

 The “Wag Gap” Is a Red Herring – It’s Marriage That Accounts for the Difference

         Feminists say that there is a "wage gap" between the earnings of men and women in Canada (which is true, and always has been), and that much of this difference is proof of wage discrimination based on sex. But this is a plainly misleading and dishonest thing to say, because the biggest reason for the difference in male/female earnings today, is marriage. That is because marital status has an asymmetrical effect on earnings by sex, as the economists say.

            In plain English: let’s suppose a man and a woman are working side by side and earning the same wage. They fall in love and decide to get married and raise a family. Suddenly something absolutely normal happens. Visions of children dance in their heads, along with simultaneous worries. If both think even the best daycare is impersonal—“there’s no way a stranger’s going to raise our kids.”—then they worry immediately about how in the world they are going to give their children personal attention and both work full time as well. Will her boss still keep her on if she asks for part-time work? He worries about mortgages, university education, clothing, food, and thinks: “Good Lord—I’m going to need a better job.” The result of this totally predictable equation is that she reduces her work hours, or quits altogether, or quits and then takes a part-time job. And he? Well, the pressure is on. He arranges an appointment with his boss and lets him know in no uncertain terms that the promotion he wasn’t so sure about last month . . . well, he’s had a serious change of heart. In fact, given a chance, he’d love to run the whole department. When this occurs millions of times over, and you average their respective earnings, you have the makings of a “wage gap.” But the crucial factor is not sex discrimination. It’s the laudable and free preferential choices made by both parties in favour of marriage and their children.

            The ratios of earnings between never-married men and women, and ever-married men and women in Canada, have always been stable. As long ago as 1971 (when the feminist movement was in full delirium) a study compiled from Census data for Statistics Canada,[1] showed the following:


                               Never Married                          Ever Married

Men                        $4,201                                      $6,675

Women                  $4,170                                       $2,217


            The excellent American economist Thomas Sowell tells us that the same picture was found from the start in the U.S.A., that “as of 1971 single women in their thirties who had worked continuously since leaving school earned slightly more than single men of the same age, even though women as a group earned less than half as much as men as a group.” Yet another study in the U.S. showed that “female academics who never married, earned more than male academics who never married,” even before “affirmative action” became mandatory in 1971. Sowell summed up this confusion by saying that most of the current income and occupational differences between males and females as gross categories turns out, on closer scrutiny, to be differences between married women and all other categories.[2]

         Almost two decades into the radical feminist era, a 1987 Statistics Canada report called “Earnings of Men and Women” still showed that never-married women made the following percentages of the earnings of never-married men:

                        never-married women             25-34 years of age:                  96.8%

                        never-married women             35-44 years of age:                  101.4%

                        never-married women             45-54 years of age:                  107.2%

                        never-married women             55+ years of age:                     102.4%

         Astonishingly, the women made more than the men at all ages except the youngest studied. Fact is that if anti-female discrimination was at work, this would have been impossible.

            Further, here’s some economic logic to put the whole mess to shame: if women were truly supplying business with cheap labour, business owners would naturally hire as many women as possible and would let the overpaid men go. But this has not happened. Further, one of the lowest-paying jobs around is that of an outdoor parking-lot attendant in winter—but you could count on one hand the number of females doing that in this country. Is this therefore a male ghetto? Not likely.

            Furthermore, if the feminist thesis were true, firms that are said to be “exploiting” low-paid women would be making large profits. But they are not. Most, in fact, are fighting tooth and nail to maintain competitive margins in the face of world competition, especially in clothing, footwear, and food processing—all family staples.

            Furthermore, women who have been widowed, divorced, or separated should not be averaged into the figures and used as proof for the lower pay of “single” women. Obviously, after years out of the job market, they cannot expect to return to the job market at high pay.

 The Bachelor “Wage Gap”

        There’s further and rather dramatic evidence to support the effect of marriage on earnings: it turns out that bachelors, in both the U.S.A. and Canada, show the same 60-70 percent “wage gap” with married men, as do all women as a group.[3] The reason for this is the same: bachelors don’t need tons of money for family and children, so they don’t engage in as much income- and promotion-seeking behaviour. The result? They earn, on average, the same as married women. In fact, the Statistics Canada data referred to above showed that bachelors as a whole made 42.8 percent of the wages of married men as a whole in 1987. Is this discrimination against bachelors? Obviously not. And yet the exact same arguments can be applied. Will pay-equity supervisors soon be forcing us to pay bachelors the same wages as married men? Don’t hold your breath.

 Canada’s Pay Police

           What about the draconian program in use to bring about pay equity? If it weren’t so sad and ridiculous, it would be funny. Suffice it to say that the in the province of Ontario (much the same elsewhere) the plan for its “implementation” engendered a whole new class of paid bureaucrats, consultants, inspectors, and, let’s face it, pay police. These ordinary folks are empowered: to hear complaints from employees; to enter an establishment and seize records without warning; and to haul employers before their “pay-equity tribunal.” Clearly, the many pay-equity commissions dotting the landscape are kangaroo courts of the first order, empowered to “make final decisions of fact and law,” made up mostly of unionists, feminists, and “experts” who make their money at the social-policy trough.

            If the cook in your staff kitchen decides that she deserves the same pay for rustling up hamburgers as your maintenance man down in the basement fixing the boilers—watch out. The pay-equity system is “complaint based,” which means she merely has to pick up the phone, and ask one of those friendly “inspectors” to drop in for a visit to your head office. These inspectors will evaluate her job—not her, but her job—in terms of four official categories: skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. They will then assign a “value” to each of these things, then run down to the basement, and do the same for the maintenance man’s job. For this unsubtle science they will use either the Hay Scale, or the Willis Scale (two of the most-used scales). The fact that there are hundreds of aspects to every job and they consider only four is, of course, passed over elegantly.

            The witty Fabian socialist and elitist George Bernard Shaw, who criticized the market system because it paid so much to prizefighters, wrote, “To suppose that it could be changed by any possible calculation that an ounce of Archbishop or three ounces of judge is worth a pound of prizefighter, would be sillier still.”

               Nevertheless, the Hay Study in San Jose California determined through “an objective point system” that a puppeteer’s job was worth 124 points, the same as the jobs of an offset-print operator and a street-sweeper. Of course no one can objectively compare, say, the pay of a great teacher with the work of Oprah Winfrey. Such evaluations are possible only by reduction, by reducing each job to aspects so common that you could walk an elephant through the subjective holes in the system. It’s like saying that because a one-ounce diamond and a one-ounce piece of lead weigh the same, they are worth the same. The Canadian economist Morley Gunderson once wrote that “while comparisons across quite dissimilar jobs are possible in theory . . . the results of evaluation procedures become more tenuous the more dissimilar the jobs.”[4] And the ever-insightful Charles Krauthammer ridiculed the use of the Willis Scale in Washington state (where pay-equity legislation was eventually thrown out as discriminatory and unconstitutional by three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeal), saying that the scale is a mandate for arbitrariness:

every subjective determination, no matter how whimsically arrived at, is first enshrined in a number to give it an entirely specious solidity, then added to another number no less insubstantial, to yield a total entirely meaningless . . . everything is arbitrary: the categories, the rankings, even the choice of judges . . . there remains one factor wholly unaccounted for which permits the system to be skewed in any direction one wishes: the weight assigned to each category . . . Who is to say that a secretary’s two years of college are equal in worth to and not half or double the worth of—the truck driver’s risk of getting killed on the highway? Mr. Willis, that’s who.[5]

      But . . . we’ve left the inspectors in the basement!

      Suddenly, they dash breathless up the stairs and inform the President of the company that he (or she!) is guilty of wage discrimination based on sex. So the President is ordered to pay the cook the exact same wage as the maintenance man. Flabbergasted, he cries out, “If I could find a maintenance man at her rate, I’d hire him!” (“Pay her!” he is told.) “My hamburgers are three dollars. I’ll have to raise the price to twelve dollars each, no one will buy them!” (“Pay her!”) “If no one buys them we’ll have to shut down the kitchen. It’s losing money already!” (“Pay her!”) “There’s a hundred others who would love to have her job at what she’s making now!” (“Pay her!”) “I’m going to shut down the damn kitchen, it’s always been a pain in the neck to the whole organization. She’ll be out of a job, for all your bungling.” (“We’re sorry, we can’t help that. Thank you. Goodbye. We’ll send your records back sometime next year.”)

             In a riotous story, "Pastry Cook Pay Angers 8OO nurses" (Toronto Star, May 18, 199O), the full idiocy of these situations began to surface. The pay police were called in to "evaluate" the work of nurses, and equate it to male work of equal value. They decided, after much precision and deliberation that a nurse's job was equivalent to that of a male pastry chef. Well, the outrage! The scandal! The "unfairness"! Florence Nightingale, a mere pastry chef? Well, this was very funny. So-called pay-equity was brought in to make pay more "fair" for certain groups of women who had voluntarily accepted their wages. But once the fairness judgement was rendered, these same women hit the streets, striking for "Fair Pay Equity" (Toronto Star, October 2, 1991). Jonathan Swift must be laughing in his grave. It has never occurred to these women that if hundreds of them line up eager to take a low-paying job, they will get low pay. In a free society, pay is a function of an employer's ability to produce a product for a price acceptable to consumers, and the worker's willingness to accept the wage required to make the product. How could it be otherwise? Next, we will see demands for "Fair, Fair Pay Equity" - but...the employers will all have left town.

            These little scenarios illustrate the arbitrariness, confusion, and failure in principle of the whole pay-equity scam. But this was inevitable, as it was just another socialist idea, as are most of the radical feminists’ ideas, and as such it could never provide any basis for economic calculation. For there is no way to establish economic value outside of a voluntary market for goods and services. In other words, by its very nature, the value of anything can arise only from a cost/benefit transaction voluntarily entered into between free buyers and sellers. There can be imposed prices (that no one will voluntarily pay, or charge, except under duress). But there is no such thing as imposed economic value. In fact, nothing has any economic value outside a free market, because any amount paid above the free price is immediately recognized as a kind of tax. Why? Because the “value” of a job is strictly related to the demand for the goods or services a job creates. And what’s called the “market-clearing” price for a good (or the wage for a job) is always a result of how willing people are to exchange a specific sum of their own money for that good, or service, or job. You can pay the cook all you want, but if no one wants twelve-dollar hamburgers—goodbye, cook! If you keep the cook anyway, her cost to the economic unit, above what revenue she generates, will be a tax on the rest of the operation (or the industry, or the nation). After all, if the sale of hamburgers isn’t paying for her keep, something else is, right? That’s why I said feminists are ignorant of the principles of economics, in the same way socialists are. It hasn’t worked for them, and it won’t work for feminists, because it can’t work. (in small ways, the Berlin Wall keeps on falling). In the end, the pay-equity idea makes feminists look pretty stupid.

            Here’s just a small sample of the kind of political jargon to which such pay-police regimes such as found in Canada- this is from Ontario - must resort because their valuations are necessarily subjective and bureaucratic. It’s hard not to giggle nervously when reading this offensive muddle. The language alone is a riot of confusion – but the Pay Police in Canada are very real. So read on, and weep:

            On definitions: The Act permits differences in compensation resulting from the use of gender-neutral formal seniority or merit systems, and from gender-neutral red-circling, temporary skills shortages, and temporary training or development assignments (see Section 8(1)). On job salaries: The midpoint and the reference point [of a salary scale] are two different things, which sometimes coincide and sometimes do not. In some salary ranges, the reference point might be two-thirds of the way up the scale, for example. The reference point is the point that employees performing at the levels their jobs require may be expected to reach.

            At one stroke, the government of Ontario introduced a program which is as complete a model of the socialist process at work in a formerly free country as could ever be invented. As the internationally respected economist Thomas Sowell, who, as a black, has had lots of experience with discrimination, says, “If we buy the key assumption of [pay-equity] - that third-party observers can tell what jobs are ‘really’ worth—then our whole economic system should be scrapped . . . If somebody has this God-like ability, why restrict it to . . . ‘pay-equity’? . . . why not rent equity, tuition equity, vacation equity, and all kinds of other equity?”

            Take a look at the Snapshot below to see why forced-equity arguments are doomed. It shows just a few of the ethnic groups in Canada that have very different earnings. There are hundreds of such “ethnic wage gaps.” In this small but real Statistics Canada sample, Jews earn twice as much as some other groups. So using the same fallacious tactics as the feminists, is anyone going to argue that this is a result of discrimination by Jews against non-Jews? Either Jews earn more because they work harder and are better at earning good wages than others, or this is racial and religious discrimination against non-Jews by a group that has itself suffered ... widespread discrimination. So, discrimination makes you wealthy?

By now, the Pay Police have left the building, scratching their heads.






            Wage & Salary Differences in Canada, by  Selected Ethnic Groups, 2005                 



                      Ethnic Group                   Average Male Employment Income

                       Jewish                                               $72,311

                       Japanese                                            $51,988

                       English                                              $48,088

                      Greek                                                 $45,612 

                       French                                               $42,142

                      Chinese                                              $38,307

                      West Indian                                       $37,261

                      N.A. Indian                                        $31,681

                      Inuit                                                   $29,967





[1] Data from Walter Block, “Economic Intervention, Discrimination, and Unforeseen Consequences,” in Discrimination, Affirmative Action, and Equal Opportunity (Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 1982), p. 112.

[2] Block, p.50.

[3] See Gilder, Wealth and Poverty, p. 279, note 8; for Canada see  “Earnings of Men and Women,” in Statistics Canada report, 1987.

[4] Morley Gunderson, “Discrimination, Equal Pay, and Equal Opportunities in the Labour Market,” in Work and Pay: The Canadian Labour Market (Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services, 1985), p. 238.

[5] Charles Krauthammer, “From Bad to Comparable Worth,” in Regulation (Washington D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1984), pp. 32-33.


A Peek at Feminist Radicalism


It is difficult to understand the present radicalism of Western feminism without looking into its roots. They differ in every country, but also have a lot in common.  Here is just a glimpse of the underlying radical root of modern feminism in Canada, which echoes the same radicalism in many other Western nations.

What is the Radical Feminist Political Program?

           As we have seen, natural male/female differences, and the free choices that spring from them, are generally reflected in a free society, and in marketplace of jobs, goods, and of ideas. Even though many militant feminists have now given up in their effort to prove that innate differences are the result of “socialization,” they have developed a more sinister approach to getting what they want. In short, if you can’t prove male-female differences are learned, but you still want to eradicate the natural as well as freely-chosen consequences of these differences, you need a lot of tax dollars, and radical changes in the laws. Remember, the leftist conception of human nature is that it is wholly malleable. So the leftist wants to shape human nature with laws and policies, whereas the conservative will generally argue he opposote: that because human nature never really alters, the laws and policies ought to conform to human nature.

              So, to change human nature, most radical-feminist organizations in Canada (and elsewhere in the West) lobby aggressively for abortion on demand, for legalized prostitution, lesbian rights, universal tax-funded daycare, the nationalization of banks and industry, for abolishing the common-law right to private property, and for withdrawing from NATO and NORAD. This is hardly the ordinary women's agenda anywhere. In Canada, it's the socialist NDP agenda – one with which some 80% of Canadians openly and repeatedly disagree. Nevertheless, successive Canadian governments, including conservative ones, have continued to finance feminist left-leaning programs lavishly, even those committed to bringing the entire government down.

                 Some examples from the start? The June, 1987 issue of World Marxist Review carried an article by Nancy McDonald, a member of the Central Executive Committee of the Communist Party of Canada, in which she Stated, “The Communist Party participates actively in NAC [since renamed]. . .” Judy Rebick, a former head of NAC, once described herself as “a former Marxist” (Globe and Mail, July 4, 1990); and Judy Darcy, formerly head of CUPE, Canada's half-million strong Union of Public Employees was once described as "radically left wing" (Globe and Mail, Aug. 17, 1991).  

                 Although the Women’s Program was invented in 1973 to promote the status of all Canadian women, it quickly morphed into an organization run by a hard-core radical feminist group that uses government funds to implant radical values in Canadian society that have nothing whatsoever to do with Canadians women as a whole.  

               Such an attitude would be less objectionable from a self-supporting group claiming to represent Canadian women. After all, they can claim whatever they want! But from a department of government? Funded by tax dollars? Pushing an openly socialist, anti-freedom agenda so obviously out of step with the sentiments of the people of Canada? And more pointedly, with the women of Canada? And ... against human nature? Why, it’s nothing short of a scandal made possible only by tax plunder.

                 Any thinking woman who does not share radical feminist views and who stops to consider how her country is being socially-reshaped by such feminists in her name, without her blessing, but with her money, ought to be outraged. Without such funding, these women’s organizations would be a backwater collection of toothless radicals. With it, they are a dangerous force for social change completely opposed to the values of most Canadian women.

                  I say let them fight as hard as they like for their views with their own money, but don’t give them my tax dollars to do it, nor the dollars of millions of men and women who deeply disagree with them.



The Androgyny Hoax

As of 198O, 72 per cent of mental health professionals...described a `healthy, mature, socially competent' adult, as androgynous.

~ Allan Carlson, Family Questions


“WASP men are the only safe target [for abuse] in advertising … you don’t get a single letter of complaint.”

~ Terry O’Reilly, host of CBC’s The Age of Persuasion (2009)


            A major instrument in the feminist effort to equalize sex-roles in society, still used by those who insist on the by-now embarrassing sameness argument, is their assault on the whole idea of gender. In effect, this is part of a vast psychological, political, and yes, philosophical rebellion that in my last book, The Great Divide, 2015), I characterized as "The Triumph of the Will over Nature," in a chapter of that title which I still believe hit the nail on the head, as they say.

At any rate, the root of this goes back to early feminist rebellion against natural gender of a kind that has exploded onto the political stage once again in the name of so-called  "transgender rights."   “Androgyny” is a term with a somewhat different inference. It refers to both genders as one, and the use of it follows from feminist ideology. They think that if all sex-role behaviours are just a result of social conditioning rather than of biology, then without such biologically-determined “roles” authentic human beings must be … naturally androgynous (an equal mixture of male and female). Hence the distinction between male and female, they have argued, is a social myth. At the extreme, feminists even argue that God is both male and female, that "Holy Wisdom" is the female persona of God, and that human beings can attain "spiritual androgyny." Such ideas have ancient origins in mystical forms of thought in which, at the extreme, the human spirit is said to be one with the universe, and all distinctions whatsoever are held to be a falsification of our original unity. This sort of spiritual egalitarianism is a retreat not merely from biology, but from all known social and material reality. 

        In his detailed, eloquent and sobering work Family Questions (1988), theAmerican scholar Allan Carlson was among the first to cite a bevy of serious scientists, some of them feminists of the honest type, who showed that the whole androgyny movement was and remains ideologically motivated, has never had any basis in fact, and has "elevated corrupted science to the level of public truth."[1]

         Beginning in the 196Os, in reaction to the "natural complement" theory of gender most people still hold (that males and females are both incomplete, and thus are a natural complement for each other), the radical feminists began to argue that women would never attain sex-role equality unless a different model of gender was created. Shulamith Firestone (who, as Carlson pointed out, did humanity a service by pushing feminist logic to perverse conclusions), argued that "Mom" must be eliminated, and replaced by a "socialist feminism"; that sex roles had to be eliminated, and replaced with her preferred "polymorphous perverse" sexuality (meaning anything goes); that the incest taboo had to be eliminated, and that parents should freely have sex with ready children. Bottle-feeding "technology" and daycare, she said, would end the need for natural mothering. This, she called "revolutionary feminism." Her peer, Anne Ferguson, of the University of Massachusetts, argued that "androgynes" the "superpersons" of the coming new society (the feminist utopia she imagined), would be freed from the need for children (here's that anti-child theme again, masquerading as a concern for over-population), by experiencing pure "bisexual love." Ferguson despised natural biological parenting because it produces "a debilitating heterosexual identity" in children. Her formula to bring about the socialist society organized on strictly  feminist principles, was simply to equalize all social, economic and political power outside the home (with affirmative action programs) - all else would follow.     

         Edward Tiryakian, of Duke University (still a real hotbed of feminist and post-modern psycho-babble), was out of the gate early too, insisting that androgyny is a "truly revolutionary" principle for overturning both the sexual division of labour and "the present prevalent form of the nuclear family which is the source of the reproduction of heterosexuality." He too advocated revolutionary change through the perfection of baby-bottle technology, and called for a U.S. Supreme court ruling declaring it unconstitutional to teach or reinforce heterosexuality in the schools.  It is now 2017, and this is about what we are seeing. 

         Ruth Bleier, another early soldier of fanatical feminism, argued that the nuclear family must be "crushed". The bitterly hostile Andrea Dworkin made a name for herself arguing for homosexuality and even bestiality – for what she called "other-animal relationships," and the freeing of children to enjoy their "right" to "live out their erotic impulses." That's what Rousseau advocated in the 18th century, and what his bizarre compatriot the Marquis de Sade actually did. She called for a "new kind of human being, and a new kind of human community." At a Canadian feminist conference she notoriously advocated that battered women "should feel free to murder their husbands."[2] Today, that would get her dragged up for “hate speech,” as well as for discrimination, for she did not advocate that battered males murder their wives, or sons their mothers.

         In acceptance of this model for the new and healthier human being, Alexandra Kaplan actually argued that “social sickness” ought to be redefined as a society with "overly masculine" men, and "overly feminine" women. This, too, followed the peculiar egalitarian illogic of radical feminism, and illustrates the attempt to alter the foundational concepts and language of our society. Another  writer, Christabelle Sethna of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (now as radical a leftist “education” school as one could find anywhere in the world) argued that dead animals represent patriarchal society and war, whereas live animals represent women; therefore, "meat eating is mysogyny" [woman-hating], and milk dairying (all those nasty men a-squeezin’ them thar udders) is a rampant exploitation of the female sex.

           Without our tax dollars, such people would be reading this drivel to the walls in some holding tank for losers; but with our considerable dollars, they have created a tax-funded audience. The State has paid for their jobs, subsidized their books, and funded their travel and their conventions. More's the pity. Angry, narrow-minded feminists have been extremely influential, despite the blatantly ideological nature of their program, their shoddy science, and their perverse anti-social values. As American psychologist Paul C. Vitz of New York University discovered, after intensive scrutiny of over 1OO high-school social studies and history textbooks at the turn of this last century: "by far the most noticeable position in the textbooks was a feminist one." Not a single story or theme celebrated marriage or motherhood as a positive experience. Sex-role reversals and the mockery of masculine men were common."

               In short, public (government) schools in North America (and many private ones, too) have for more than three decades been furiously promoting lies about human nature. They began with the androgyny myth (the lie that both sexes are the same); then moved on to the notion that human sexuality is a diverse phenomenon, and normal heterosexual relations, marriages, and families no better or worse than any other kind; to the general “post-modern” lie that all gender is at bottom a matter of choice, and is “socially-constructed.” That’s why today we can see vote-grabbing Mayors gliding through some of our largest cities on garish, tax-funded floats surrounded by genitalia-brandishing exponents of “LGBT” (etc., etc), or the “lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans-gender,”[3] lifestyle. Your gender is what you construct for yourself. Human nature is not defined by your biology, but by your will. It’s all a kind of sexual fascism - the imposition of human Will on reality; another expression of the eternal revolt against … human nature   

        In public schools it amounts to a tax-funded brainwashing of society through children. And this, despite the fact that there have always been a host of serious social scientists demonstrating that the androgyny notion has no basis in fact, and is a political hoax. So-called "androgynous" people are in fact far more dysfunctional, more neurotic, lower in self-esteem, and more confused than normal people. There is nothing "super" about them. Researchers have shown conclusively that normal sex-typed parents make by far the best parents (androgynous parents "perform dismally"); that masculinity in males is correlated most highly with positive mental health; that male psychopaths have low masculinity scores, and so on. Researcher Diana Baumrind summed it up long ago when she said that traditional sex-typing is healthy for society and for children, and that androgyny, as a positive concept, is a complete and utter failure.[4] Carlson lamented that in the United States (ditto for Canada) "a small band of ideologues...has succeeded in imposing a fraudulent, dangerous ideology, masquerading as science, on broad elements of our public life." A major concern for our future is that this fraud has succeeded in legalizing “misandry” - the hatred of men - which I will write about next.



[1] Allan Carlson, Family Questions (New Brunswick, N>J.: Transaction Books, 1988), p.44

[2] Alberta Report, May 27, 1991

[3]  From Wikipedia: “LGBT is an acronym referring collectively to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. In use since the 1990s, the term “LGBT” is an adaptation of  “LGB” which itself started replacing the phrase “gay community” which many within LGBT communities felt did not represent accurately all those to whom it referred. In modern usage, the term LGBT is intended to emphasize a diversity of "sexuality and gender-identity based cultures" and is sometimes used to refer to anyone who is non-heterosexual instead of exclusively to people who are homosexual, bisexual, or transgender. To recognize this inclusion, a popular variant adds the letter Q for queer and questioning (e.g., “LGBTQ”) for those not explicitly denoted by LGBT, such as pansexuality, intersex, etc. The acronym has become mainstream as a self-designation and has been adopted by the majority of LGBT community centers and LGBT media in many English-speaking countries. These acronyms are not agreeable to everyone that they literally encompass.  Some intersex people want to be included in LGBT groups and would prefer the term “LGBTI”. Some argue that transgender and transsexual causes are not the same as that of LGB people.  A correlate to these ideas is evident in the belief of “lesbian & gay separatism,” which holds that lesbians and gay men should form a community distinct and separate from other groups normally included.  Other people also do not care for the term as they feel the lettering comes across as being too politically-correct, an attempt to categorize various groups of people into one grey area, and that it implies that the issues and priorities of the main groups represented are given equal consideration.” [My comment:  Such are the contradictions and confusions of post-modern sexual fascism.]     

[4] Diana Baumrind, “Are Androgynous Individuals More Effective Persons and Parents?” in Child Development, 53 (January 1982), pp. 45-66, cited in Carlson, Family Questions, p.42.


What Are the Effects of Innate Sex Differences On Society?

What Are the Effects of Innate Sex Differences on Society?

            Briefly put, they can be devastating—unless society is determined to control them, as it did in the nineteenth century. Alas, we have long since sowed the wind of sexual egalitarianism, and we are reaping the whirlwind. For, as George Gilder poignantly argues in Men and Marriage, the unconstrained public philosophy of males the world over, to the great detriment of society, tends to focus on immediate gratification. Single young men are a distinct hazard to society and its procreative health for the following reasons. They vastly prefer hit-and-run sex. They are wildly more aggressive than females. Although single men represent a percentage in the low teens (and falling) of the population over the age of fourteen, they commit nearly ninety-percent of major and violent crimes. They drink more, have more—and more serious—car accidents, than women, or than married men. Young bachelors are twenty-two times more likely to be committed for mental disease—and ten times more likely to go to hospital for chronic diseases than married men. Single men are convicted of rape five times more often than married men; they have almost double the mortality rate of married men, and three times that of single women, from all causes.

     Because homosexuality is overwhelmingly a “hit-and-run” phenomenon for males (distinctly not so for females), and suits their predilection for immediate – and often anonymous - gratification, such homosexuality is in accord with the sexual nature of males and thrives when male/female role distinctions are suppressed. Cultures that want to guard against the threat of homosexuality must therefore drive a cultural wedge down hard between maleness and femaleness, for it is no simple coincidence that homosexuality is flourishing in a time of feminism. They go together like the two sides of a coin.

       Just so, the attempt of the State to neutralize male and female differences is manifest in its parallel effort to “normalize” homosexuality, marketing it to us in its agencies and schools as a “value-free” matter of sexual “orientation.” In such matters, the State is promoting and financing the elimination of meaningful and socially useful differences. Of course, homosexuality is much more than an “orientation;” it is also an ideology, and today, there is a whole feminist school promoting homosexuality as liberation from men, marriage, and traditional society, and true feminism, as lesbianism. In its heyday, the January, 1988 newsletter of the U.S. National Organization for Women (NOW), we read: "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist.” Some make the weak argument that heterosexuality is also ideological. But that is a manifestly absurd argument blind to the biological facts and truth of human nature in human history.

          The real truth is that this whole matter of sexual liberation – which is code for liberation from natural biological propensities - has backfired. Men have benefited sexually in the short term, but certainly not in the long. Women have lost in both because they have surrendered the one sure means of control they had over men, the one sure method that enabled them to have children, provide for them, protect them, and nurture them personally at the same time—all paid for by doting males—if they so desired. Now, in some despair, millions of abandoned mothers are turning to the patriarchal State for sustenance. But of course, the State can only be such a Father either by employing women in huge numbers (about 80 percent of low-paid public-service clerical staff in all Western social-democracies, are women), or by taking the tax money the increasing number of low-income female-headed families requires from singles, and from fathers and mothers in intact families. Even worse, as Gilder explains, feminism, by default, has allowed men to create a system of serial polygamy—one in which the stronger (wealthier, more successful) men can enjoy many partners. But a woman loses out in the sense that for the purposes of child-bearing her chances of locating a strong husband are biologically confined to a few fleeting years of her life. If she waits too long to marry, the strong males her own age get taken in a rapidly-peaking, concave-sided pyramid of diminishing choices.

       Worse still, in societies that choose both to neutralize natural sex differences and to permit “liberated” sex, the homosexual under-culture always vies for normality with the core culture, attacks traditional values, and recruits otherwise procreative (and usually younger) males. In other words, “polygyny produces homosexuality.”[1] It does this both by liberalizing the sexual choices for strong males (thus destroying the equal apportionment of possible mates) and, in its feminist guise, by setting the female ethos against the male ethos, thus encouraging sexual resentment between men and women. This, in turn, leads to less marriage, something seen immediately in Sweden when it took the lead by enthusiastically embracing sexual liberation. Sweden’s marriage rate between 1966 and 1973 did a freefall to around 50 percent of its former level); more people began living alone (more than 63 percent of the residents of Stockholm now live alone); and divorce - or “couple dissolution” - as the Swedes call it, rose drastically.[2] Multiple mates? Easy sex? Multiple mistresses? Homosexuality? Easy divorce and cohabitation? A booming pornography industry? All these inevitably undermine heterosexual monogamy, which is unfortunate, because “monogamy is designed to minimize the effect of sexual inequalities—to prevent the powerful of either sex from disrupting the familial order . . . any sexual revolution, therefore, will tend to liberate more men than women.”[3]

            It is for this reason that “the crucial process of civilization is the subordination of male sexual impulses and biology to the long-term horizons of female sexuality.”[4] Gilder convincingly argues that because of the male-female hormonal difference in biology, society basically must be set up to tame men and their barbaric proclivities. For without the long-range reproductive goals of women, men would be content to fight, enjoy their lust, wander, make war, compete, and strive for power, glory, and dominance. In his view, in terms of the larger purposes of human civilization that depend utterly on sufficient procreation, successful child-nurture, and strong families, males in general are inferior sexually to women, who, because of their biology, control the entirety of the sexual and procreative order (or disorder) of human life. In fact, males are in this sense only neither sexually nor morally equal to females, and therefore “the man must be made equal by society.” That is, men rely for personal meaning and success on the socially-purposive roles created for them by their culture. Thus is the contract struck between men and women whereby he provides and protects, she processes and nurtures. Again, a woman who wants to try all four of these things, or switch it all around, is free to try (at least, in a free society this is true). But most, the world over, do not—because the system works. What this means is that men, lacking in the distinctiveness and biological determinateness of women, are “deeply dependent on the structure of society to define [their] role.”[5]

            In short, women channel and confine the generalized male sexual desire in such a way as to protect themselves and their children, and in so doing teach men to subordinate their impulses to the long-term cycles of female sexuality and biology on which society has always been based. In order to avail himself of the intense and intimate sexual meaning a woman can give to his life, and the extension of himself into the future through children that only a woman can provide, a man must give something in return—and this must always be “the external realm of meaning, sustenance, and protection in which the child can be safely born.”[6] And that’s just the start. When you stop to consider deeply the complex, life-long physical, emotional, and financial requirements of the average family (I have five children), the seriousness of this undertaking sinks in. It requires what the anthropologist Margaret Mead called a “commitment of permanence” from each sex, and a “deal” struck between the parties, the terms of which are supplied by the culture. We break the deal at our own—and especially at our children’s—peril.

            While one can always quibble with details, or find exceptions, it will remain difficult to argue with Gilder’s main thesis because it is so overwhelmingly supported by anthropological studies around the world, in every culture studied, past and present. In view of this, we must ask why, in our present society, the state-financed radical feminist program has been so influential? Sex-education classes now take the experience of very early fornication for granted,[7] male/female differences are downplayed or outright denied in school textbooks, even imagined as wholly imaginary differences; homosexuality is presented as just another normal “orientation;” so-called “value-free” discussions and “self-esteem” codes of “ethics” (the word “morality” has completely dropped from usage) are promoted as primary, and the crucial importance of procreative marriage and the family is all but forgotten. But the question to which all citizens ought to demand an answer is this: Why does the State legitimize and finance only radical-feminist advocacy groups, and not those that promote traditional family life? Why does it massively fund abortion-on-demand, but only token sexual-abstinence programs for the young? Why does it fund extreme left-wing radical organizations like the former National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC), but not conservative pro-family organizations? If its interest was really equality, wouldn’t the funding be more even-handed? At a minimum, readers should begin to suspect that the sorts of programs introduced in order to achieve an ideologically asexual, anti-biological society, with equal outcomes regardless of gender has beenestructive of our social fabric.




[1] Gilder, Men and Marriage, p.77. Polygamy, a general term, refers to having multiple opposite sex mates.  Polygyny means having more than one female mate at the same time. Polyandry means having more than one male mate at the same time.

[2] Allan Carlson, “Charity Begins at Home,” in Chronicles (Rockford, Illinois: The Rockford Institute), August 1988, pp. 12-15.

[3] Gilder, Men and Marriage, p. 78.

[4] Gilder, Men and Marriage, p.5

[5] Gilder, Men and Marriage, p.10

[6] Gilder, Men and Marriage, p. 14

[7] In and around Toronto where I live, the current rage among some teenaged girls, is oral sex, offered quite freely by many of them, even on school buses, and often for a fee. Twenty to fifty dollars is the going rate, and many teen-aged school girls see this is as much easier way to buy a new dress than working at a regular job, and they are happy they don’t need to “have sex” to earn this kind of money. This is reported to me by credible 14 year old boys.


My Thoughts on "Free Speech"

Last Wednesday, I did a brief Interview with Ezra Levant on his Rebel Media show, on my book The Great Divide: Why Liberals and Conservatives Will Never, Ever Agree (2015).

Here it is:

Ezra has had a lot of trouble of late because of his commentary on the horrific riots in Charlottesville Virginia. I can't go into that in detail here, but he was perceived to be excusing racism and violence, etc., whether or not that was his intent.

However, I think much of his trouble arose simply because he has always tried to defend "free speech." I especially admired the way he single-handedly defended himself against Canada's outrageous so-called Human Rights Tribunals, which are in fact just kangaroo courts set up to control what people say, and even how they think (by mandating "re-education" courses for offenders, etc). But in such "courts", truth is no defence (which fact ought to offend everbody!) and I for one never thought the Western world would stoop to such draconian extra-legal totalitarian procedures. Shame on us all for not breaking up and ruling illegal and offensive to every civilized bone in our body politic, these mewling and smelly little procedures.

Free Speech is a Western concept that rests on the modern libertarian (and formerly, but no longer, on the classical liberal) notion of the "harm principle" which, from its origins in ancient thought, found expression in modern times in Articlel 4 of The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, and then, most famously, in John Stuart Mill's little booklet On Liberty, of 1859. It is also found, though not in such words, in the First Amendment to the American Constitution (which forms part of the US Bill of Rights) of 1791.

The core idea, is that you should be able to say whatever you want in public as long as you do not incite rioting or directly harm someone else. And of course, the normal laws of libel and slander always apply.

My personal belief, however, is that the notion of "free speech", whether in the USA or Canada or anywhere else, was always, until very recently, intended only to allow decent free speech by any citizen in a civilized context. It was never intended to include breaking windows, damaging private property, hooliganism, shouting vile, hateful, or vulgar slogans or threats in the public square which others cannot escape hearing, and so on. In other words, it was intended to allow the free expression of, and protesting in favour of, alternative, and even distasteful moral or political ideas and ideals.

The key to what I am arguing here, is that you should be allowed free speech in civil conditions, but you should not be allowed to impose it on me, in any manner you please. I should not have to put up with pushing my way through a crowd of angry Marxists or Nazis or socialists with loudspeakers and clubs every time I leave for work in the morning. That kind of "free speech" makes the enjoyment of a free and settled life impossible.

So ... In the context of what I am seeing now in the USA, and have seen before in Europe (such as during the May 1968 riots in Paris) and the earlier 1966 riots at Stanford University and Berkely (again!), I, like many others, am in search of a solution, and here is what I propose...

Unlimited Free Speech in Limited Spaces

I believe all citizens should be allowed to think and say whatever they wish, any time they wish, but that their thoughts and feelings should not be imposed on others who don't wish to hear them. Free speech should be a voluntary expression, but also a voluntary experience, and not an imposed one.

So ... a solution that would preserve total free speech but limit its deleterious and unpleasant or dangerous immediate consequences would be to quarantine the spaces for free speech.

Free Speech Parkettes and Facilities

What about every city and town setting up as many Free Speech Spaces at it might want, where any citizen could go to express his or her ideas to whomsoever might want to go and hear them?

I am imagining a sizeable city setting up a dozen or so small parkettes outdoors, and/or equivalent indoor spaces with some seating, where citizens could go to hear anything fom sensible to completely outrageous speeches. Debates could also be scheduled in such spaces.

If a particular city had so lost its sense of civilized discourse that violence was a possibility, such spaces could easily be policed to prevent violence and the shutting down of opinion.

The advantage of such an arrangement is that we would have unlimited free speech in a civilized context that would be voluntarily enjoyed rather than imposed on anyone, and violence and public vulgarity could be controlled.

That's it for today ...


Google, Feminism, and "Brain Sex"

        This post seems particulary timely in view of the recent tempest in the Google teapot over an internet post on gender differences by James Damore, who basically argued that men and women are very different.

           Perhaps the only mistake he made was to ignore the fact that people selected from the general population by Google for employment are a very specialized sub-set in which men and women may be more alike than men and women are in the world at large.

           The observations and research cited below describe natural male-female differences found in the general population, and anyone who follows up this work will forever be disabused of the false notion that men and women are "the same".


Brain Sex

“Boys and girls are as different above the neck as they are below.”

~ anonymous

         Until around the 1970s most of this argument was conducted as a verbal nature-nurture slugfest. Words, and lots of statistics. But since then it has been fought - and won - in favour of clear biological differences – with CAT and PET scanners, MRI machines, and Electron microscopes. These and many other combinations of extraordinary technology and biochemistry have revealed irrefutably that various parts of the brains of men and women are structurally different and, even where they are the same, they often function very differently in fascinating ways when performing the same tasks. Such findings soon began causing sex-difference researchers to recant their previous faith in the “blank slate” idea of the mind (the idea that we begin life with a mind like a blank slate on which life will write) and to admit it is no longer tenable to believe that males and females are born with the same behavioural dispositions.

What follows is drawn from my book The Trouble With Canada ... Still! (2010) and from The Book of Absolutes (2008), and these are lay books for the general reader, and I did not want to burden them  chapter with overly-detailed proofs. Those interested are encouraged to see my notes for some references,[1] or to search the internet under topics such as “cognitive sciences,” “sex and cognition,” and the “psychology of sex differences.” Below is just a brief summary of some of the findings. Readers should feel free to forward this blog, or any parts of it they choose to whomever to trye to spread the truth about this unnecessarily fractious topic.


 A great number of studies show that male and female babies behave differently in the womb (movements, heart rates, etc.) and also moments after birth (give different attention and have different intensity of reaction to the same objects, sounds, and tactile sensations).

 Infant girls -- but not infant boys -- distinguish a baby’s cry from other general sounds. Male babies prefer objects to people, females the reverse.

 Girls develop language, fluency, and verbal memory earlier than boys and process such information faster, a difference observed by all researchers.

 Girls are less rule-bound and boys more so. Boys need rules to tell whether they are winning or not. Their pre-adolescent play is often such rank-related play.

 From birth, boys are more aggressive, competitive, and self-assertive than girls (perhaps the most common finding, worldwide). Even when one-year-old babies are separated from their mothers and their toys by a fence-like barrier, the girls tend to stay in the middle and cry for help, while the boys tend to cluster at the ends of the barrier, trying to find a way out.

Human cognitive patterns and their related brain organization are apparently permanently influenced by physiological events that take place by the fourth fetal month.

At the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Medicine, a combination of PET scans and high-resolution MRI technology used to study brain metabolism has shown that even at rest, doing nothing in particular, there were male-female differences in brain metabolism in seventeen different brain areas. 

Beginning at puberty men are more prone to physical violence (most crime is by males between the ages of fifteen and twenty-five), and women are more prone to emotional volatility. In the same period, men show more confidence, concentration, and ambition, whereas women show more social sensitivity and interest in relationships. About 85% of all crimes are committed by males, and there are specific, universal sex differences in the styles, types of victim, and post-crime behaviours of male and female perpetrators of violent crimes.

Spatial skills: Boys are better than girls on a variety of spatial skills. This advantage is cross-cultural and is practically universal in males. The spatial-skill sex difference becomes quite marked after puberty and is even observed in animals.

Women are superior to men at certain tasks requiring memory for the location of objects, and at many language tasks.


       So ... it seems that from birth males tend to strive harder than females to reach the top of any power hierarchy they encounter, and they create their own hierarchies to reach the top if none exist. Boys are usually more aggressive, more Machiavellian in their pursuit of power, and crueler and more willing to hurt others than girls. Studies abound showing that men the world over tend to devalue if not despise victims—especially their own—whereas women tend to take pity on them. Nothing in this male attitude is particularly admirable, but that’s the way it is. This was driven home to me by a television documentary on the entering of a World War II concentration camp by Russian soldiers. The commentator remarked that many of the soldiers not only stole from the women prisoners, but raped them as well. Now these women were the most emaciated imaginable, some close to death. With sadness and disgust it hit home that no woman could possibly find a man in that condition sexually desirable, or wish to degrade him so. With that thought, my awareness of the chasm that exists between the physical and moral lives of males and females struck home even harder. And let us not forget that throughout history, and even though lots of women do this too, it is the men who have been prone to abandon children, murder them, bayonet them in war, rape them, take them into slavery, and so on. The truly great crimes of history have been perpetrated by men—I think of countless tyrants, especially the modern ones such as Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, and their like, who wrought cruelties of a kind and scope that beggar the imagination. And let us never forget: they were all utopian socialists. In this prototypical sense only, radical feminism (striving for aggressive control of social outcomes) is a very male undertaking.

           Anthropological studies the world over verify the reality of male aggression and hardness, which can be induced in any female, human or primate, by the simple administration of male hormones. Anyone who has had occasion to mix with athletes on steroids has known this for years. Both male and female athletes take only male hormones, for an obvious reason—to enhance power and aggressiveness. Contrarily, female hormones administered to long-term violent criminals succeed in pacifying them. Of course, aggressiveness is highly valued in societies the world over, and so men tend to be rewarded for this kind of behaviour. In other words, learning plays an important secondary role, but not a primary one. Anthropological and biological studies the world over confirm that through hormones, men in general are rendered more aggressive, exploratory, volatile, competitive and dominant, more visual, abstract, and impulsive, more muscular, appetitive, and tall . . . less nurturant, moral, domestic, stable, and peaceful, less auditory, verbal, and sympathetic, less durable, healthy, and dependable, less balanced . . . more compulsive sexually and less secure. Within his own sex, he is more inclined to affiliate upwards—toward authority—and less inclined to affiliate downwards—toward children and toward the weak and needy.[2]

             As a natural result of this, there is no society in the world in which matriarchy has ever existed, or is in any way emerging today. Fascinatingly, the beginning of all these differences is right in the womb. For we all begin life as females, biologically. We become male only if the Y chromosome is present, and sufficient male hormones then act upon our early development. Maleness is biological difference – there is nothing “constructed” about it.  Even genetic girls accidentally exposed to male hormones, consistently reject most of the attempts of the culture to feminize them.[3]

             Enough said. What are we to make of all this? Very simply, that men monopolize leadership positions because they try harder to get them does not mean that men deserve these positions or that men do a better job in them than women would do if they became leaders. The only sense in which male dominance is “right” is that it expresses the free choices of individual men to strive for positions of power and the free choices of individual women to do other things.[4]

           My addendum to this is that aggressiveness and control are two very different things. In external structures, like armies, or businesses, the former generally leads to the latter; but in interpersonal relationships, not necessarily so. Everyone can think of couples where the male is more aggressive, but the female controls the relationship and the tenor of the family. Women tend to be just as aggressive as men defensively, when fighting for their loved ones or some deep-rooted belief, but are universally less aggressive than men offensively. Recall the great line from the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding:

Husband: “The Husband is the head of the family.”

Wife: “Yes, my dear, but the Wife, she is the neck.”




         [1] References to universal (insofar as these have been cross-culturally examined) human sex differences abound in several books. See Eleanor Maccoby and Carol Jacklin, The Psychology of Sex Differences (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1974), for a survey of the then existing literature. Moir and Jessel, Brain Sex, is an early popular display of this reality. Glenn Wilson, The Great Sex Divide (Washington DC: Scott-Townsend Publishers, 1992) is a very readable treatment of the biochemical and experimental evidence for innate sex differences. Robert L. Nadeau, S/He Brain (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1996), is a review of the underlying biochemical and neuro-scientific findings about sex differences, nested in some appropriately targeted political objections to feminist ideology. Doreen Kimura, Sex and Cognition (Cambridge, Mass,: MIT Press, 2000) is a careful review of the findings to date, somewhat apprehensively expressed. David C.Geary, Male, Female: the Evolution of Human Sex Differences (Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 1998) is the most detailed survey of studies on sex differences thought to be rooted in evolutionary theory. Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (New York: Viking Penguin, 2002), is another of Pinker’s long, cheerfully confident, and informative books, in which he summarizes much evidence for innate sex-differences.

[2] George Gilder, Men and Marriage (Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican Books, 1986), p. 20.

[3] Gilder, Men and Marriage, p.26.

[4] Levin, Feminism and Freedom, p. 91.