shytone  books  music  essays  home  exploratories  new this month

book reviews

Eleanor Maccoby: The Two Sexes:
growing up apart, coming together
(Belknap Press: 1998)

“This book is about sex (or gender) in the broadest sense: about how an individual’s development from infancy to adulthood is affected by being either a male or a female..... In many respects, males and females take quite similar developmental paths. But, in some important respects, their paths diverge.... When boys and girls are engaged in social play, they congregate primarily with others of their own sex during the preschool and middle-childhood years, and different childhood ‘cultures’ prevail in these gender-segregated playgroups.... Every known human society has rules and customs concerning gender...[and] the cross-cultural variety is enough to make it obvious that biology is not destiny, even though the differentiated reproductive biology of the two sexes is something that every society weaves into its gender definitions in some way.... In the past several decades, the dominant perspective has been that gender is socially constructed...[but] the socialization account has not proved adequate...[as] we now know that there are powerful gender-linked phenomena that...cannot be understood in terms of sex-linked personality traits, or dispositions inculcated in each individual child through the process of socialization. Rather, they require us to shift our focus from the individual to the dyad, or larger social group, [as] sex-linked behavior turns out to be a pervasive function of the social context in which it occurs. This may seem like a truism...but when it comes to the differentiation of male and female behavior, we can now go beyond simple contextual relativism. We can point to a specific aspect of context which has broad relevance, and which indeed is cross-culturally universal. It turns out that the relevant condition is the gender composition of the social pair or group within which the individual is functioning, at any given time. The gendered aspect of an individual’s behavior is brought into play by the gender of others.... I invite the reader to consider the possibility that much of the work that has been done on individual sex-typing - for example, on the acquisition of ‘masculine’ versus ‘feminine’ traits - will turn out to be essentially irrelevant to the [much more powerful] gender differentiation that depends on social context. This differentiation is a powerful phenomenon in need of explanation.”
(Maccoby, pp.1-12)

A groundbreaking work, ignored by the popular imagination in favour of far less accurate/useful approaches to development and gender, Eleanor Maccoby’s The Two Sexes (1998) synthesized and extended an emerging consensus that we’d, quite simply, been looking in the wrong place for gender difference. Trouble was - and is - that the predominant strand on both sides of the ‘debate’ (more like a slanging match, usually) was/is basically wedded to an individualist model of personality...rather than one in which social context is central. This, as Mary Douglas has noted, is in essence a founding assumption w/in mainstream psychology...thus condemning most of the very best work/traditions - see post-Vygotsky developmental psychology, basically all forms of social psychology, and Merlin Donald’s evolutionary psychology - to peripheral status w/in the favour of work which is markedly inferior in both concept and evidential support.

A cruel, but fair assessment...I think.

“If one thinks about group differences as a comparison of the average scores of males with those of females on some measure of individual personality dispositions, the contrastive framework has indeed been outgrown. But, if one thinks of groups as entities which have their own dynamics, their own cultures - properties that pertain to groups as groups, and are not describable in terms of the characteristics of the members - then the contrastive framework remains both useful, and necessary. It may be the case - probably is the case - that a small number of central or leading children are much more active than others in establishing a group’s culture. Yet this does not change the fact that all members of the group must find ways to adapt to whatever the group culture is.... We should not assume, however, that the two sexes are entirely disconnected from one another in childhood. Boys and girls are intensely aware of each other, and there are changes with age in the nature of the cross-sex interactions that occur, and in the way cross-sex contacts are perceived and managed.”
(Maccoby, p.58)

“Of course, writers have not always meant the same thing when they talk about ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’. We can distinguish at least three meanings: 1. A masculine or feminine person is one who embodies the characteristics prescribed by the male or female sex roles in that person’s society [favoured by social scientists].... 2. A masculine or feminine person is one who exemplifies the characteristics that have been shown to differentiate the sexes [favoured by psychological scientists].... 3. A feminine woman is one who is, and strives to be, attractive to men, and a masculine man is one who is attractive to women.... [And, clearly,] individuals who can be considered quite ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ under one of these definitions may not be so under another.”
(Maccoby, pp.6-7)

As should already be clear by this point, Maccoby may not be an exciting writer, but she’s eminently clear...and an extremely astute analyst of both conceptual and experimental design. As such, after so many books on gender filled w/poorly-designed experiments - matched w/wildly over-inflated claims from both the left and the right - it’s downright refreshing to encounter an author who can cut through the crap, and explain exactly why we see a gender divide, when the results on virtually every form of character trait test reveal extremely small gender differences on average and - even more important - a (literally) vast area of overlap...where most of the two sexes reside.

Here’s the facts, for a change:

“There is a powerful tendency for children to segregate themselves by gender in childhood, and to play more compatibly with same-sex partners.... It first begins to show itself in the third year of life - with same-sex preference being shown somewhat earlier in girls - and progressively strengthens until it is strong indeed by middle childhood....The tendency of dyads or groups to be gender-homogenous is much more robust than average sex differences on measures of the usual dimensions of individual difference.... After the first few years, boys appear more active than girls in bringing about, and maintaining, the social separation of the sexes.... It is important to note, too, that even among children who very seldom play with children of the other sex, there is considerable variation in how much they are involved with children of their own sex. Some children do not have a best friend of either sex; some may have a best friend but avoid taking part in larger-group activities.... Still, they typically do not violate the implicit rules of childhood concerning the separation of the sexes.”
(Maccoby, pp.29-31)

“In some ways, ages five-eight may be the most ‘sexist’ period of life. At this age, children tend to be ‘essentialists’, in that they usually do not attribute sex differences to environmental causes, but believe they simply follow from being either a male or female person.... And at this time, gender stereotypes are quite rigid, and children see deviations as from them as positively wrong, not just misguided. Furthermore, children of this age make predictions about the characteristics and preferences of children they don’t know, almost entirely on the basis of those children’s sex, ignoring other available information that might tell a different story.”
(Maccoby, pp.169-70)

“Racial segregation is also seen in cafeteria seating patterns in ‘integrated’ schools, but the lines of separation by gender are stronger, so that if most of the seats are taken, and a child must choose...cross-gender avoidance prevails.... [Similarly, in] informal groupings in an ungraded school...[where] there were many more opportunities to...interact with others older or younger...cross-age mixing was much more common than cross-sex mixing. Indeed, between the ages of eight and eleven, the median percent of social time spent with children of the other sex was zero.”
(Maccoby, pp..24-7)

“The phenomenon is advanced industrial societies, as well as traditional preliterate ones, [and] it is also fairly resistant to change.... It would be a mistake to conclude, however that [it] is not subject to influence from cultural and subcultural conditions, [as] there is considerable variability among different settings in the degree to which segregation occurs. For example, it has been reported that children are more likely to play with a child of the other sex  in their residential neighborhood [or in private] than at school.... Whiting and Edwards, in their cross-cultural comparisons, note that boys make especially strong efforts to dissociate themselves from women, in societies where men have considerably higher status.... Perhaps it would be most accurate to say that there is a strong bias in every society for children to be drawn toward playmates of their own sex, but that societies and subcultures differ in terms of whether this bias is supported and extended through social attitudes and arrangements, or counteracted.”
(Maccoby, pp.27-9)

The Two Sexes is divided into three sections, the first - as above - detailing the facts of the matter, the second exploring the main causal elements (all of which, by the way, Maccoby factors in, in various ways), and the third a discussion of the impact of what we’ve found later in life. Of these, I think the first is undoubtedly the the evidence does not really allow for any other explanation: the real meat of the gender divide lies here, and certainly not in individual character traits...whether these are seen as inherited or acquired. As Maccoby notes, even masculine aggression is very much context-driven, and so, hardly fits the accepted pattern of a genuinely robust aspect of personality...

“Among children under two, no sex differences were seen in the frequency of [agonistic] behavior. In the third and fourth years, however, girls dropped off notably in the frequency with which they displayed [such] behavior, while in boys, the frequency was not only maintained, but somewhat that...the frequencies were twice as high for boys as for girls.... We are accustomed to thinking of boys’ aggressiveness as a personality trait...but we must keep two facts in mind: first, most boys are not aggressive, in the sense of possessing a consistent personality disposition that involves frequent fighting...and, second, boys almost always choose other boys as their targets for aggression...[which is] better seen as a property of male dyads or groups, than of individuals.... [And while] we do not have a very reliable mapping of the frequency with which rough play and fighting occur at successive age periods through childhood, what evidence we do have suggests that it declines through middle childhood. Indeed, for most boys, the peak frequency may be reached at about the age of four...[and] in middle childhood, male competitiveness undergoes a structural change: boys in their larger groups tend to organize their competitive play in the form of structured games.... [Moreover,] interaction among girls is by no means free of conflict, and recent studies have pointed to a distinctively female element in conflictual behavior - relational aggression.... The frequency of alienating tactics among girls increased sharply with age, from about one tenth of conflict themes in the fourth grade to over a third in the seventh grade, [while] these tactics were almost never mentioned by boys in their interviews.... [However,] it is worth noting that the sex difference in direct aggression is greater than that for relational aggression, in studies where the comparison can be made.”
(Maccoby, pp.35-40)

“The stories told by children of the two sexes diverge sharply. Girls’ stories were focused on social relationships, and frequently dealt with the maintenance and restoration of order in these relationships, [while] ‘home’ was an anchoring locale, and characters were shown moving away from and returning home. The boys, by contrast, did not portray their characters as members of stable social groups, but rather as individual characters linked to each other through their actions. Their stories focused on struggle, conflict, and destruction, with the resolution depending on physical size and power.... [Moreover,] the heroic-agonistic themes of boys’ stories, and the social-relationship (domestic, familial) themes of girls’ stories are clearly isomorphic with the themes...that are enacted by boys and girls in their spontaneous pretend play.”
(Maccoby, p.43)

“It’s clear that boy’s groups and girl’s groups have somewhat different agendas, a major difference being that boys seem to be much more intensively involved than girls in issues of dominance and the maintenance of status. This difference can be seen in styles of discourse, and the fantasy themes of pretend play, as well as in the behavioral modes of enacting and resolving conflict.... [And,] in some respects, [the two cultures] appear to be nearly as  divergent as segregation itself. The incidence of rough-and-tumble play, and of fighting (though this is infrequent, even for boys), is much greater in male groups...[and] with respect to the themes enacted in fantasy play, the two sexes are also quite divergent, though perhaps not so strongly as in rough-and-tumble play. When it comes to styles of discourse and conflict resolution, however, gender divergence is probably narrower...[and] my hypothesis is that boys’ discourse styles diverge from the female pattern especially strongly when dominance issues are at play; otherwise, the styles...may be more similar.... Boys do differ, however, with respect to how involved they are in the activities of the primary boys group, and...certainly by the time children have reached middle school, one sees the formation of subgroups along lines of mutual interest.... Among girls, such groupings are not so clear. The main basis for distinction among girls appears to be popularity, [and] the ‘top girls’ are the ones who are style-setters: they know how to dress and take pains about their grooming. They are competent managers of social activities, while being ‘nice’ to others, [and] they wield social power in the sense that they can influence which girls are ‘in’ and which ‘out’ of the popular category. And, as puberty approaches, they are the girls who are viewed by other girls as popular with boys.”
(Maccoby, pp.56-7)

The evidence re ‘borderwork’ - the ways in which the two sexes interact at this point - are equally fascinating...and perversely funny, at times. And, although she doesn’t mention “girls’ - and boys’ - germs” by name, the thought is clearly there...

“Despite the fact that children of both sexes are powerfully oriented toward others of their own sex...the forces drawing boys together, and involving the exclusion of girls, appear to be stronger than the own-gender forces binding groups of girls...[with] girls more open to association with boys, more willing to listen to and interact with them.... Girls tend to be interested in masculine - as well as feminine - activities. Boys, however, seem to play mainly to a male audience. In their toy and activity choices, preschool boys are concerned with not appearing to be girl-like. They tease or reject other boys who do girl-like things...or play with girls, and reinforce their male playmates for male-typical behavior; girls, by contrast, are usually unconcerned about tomboy behavior in another girl.... Clearly, an essential element in becoming masculine is becoming not-feminine, while girls can be feminine without having to prove that they are not masculine.”
(Maccoby, pp.51-2)

“A girl, for example, typically spent no time playing in a dyad with a boy, and no time in a situation with two or more boys in which she was the only girl. She either spent her play time entirely with girls, or spent a portion in situations where...boys were involved, but in which at least one other girl was present. The mirror-image situation prevailed for boys.... [Moreover, it is] not the case that certain individual children consistently preferred to play with children of the other sex, while most did not. Rather, it was as though there were a few situations in which children knew it was ‘OK’ to play with a child of the other sex, and in such situations any child would do so, while in the majority of free-play situations, cross-sex play was not OK, and no child would do so.”
(Maccoby, pp.79-83)

“Although boys’ groups and girls’ groups monitor their member’s contacts with the other sex, such contacts are not altogether forbidden.... The basic principle seems to be that a child must not display an interest to be in the company of an other-sex child. If cross-sex contact is to occur, there must be some element in the situation that makes it clear that the contact was not voluntary. Sroufe and colleagues provide evidence that some children are more active than others in maintaining gender boundaries, and enforcing gender ‘rules’. They further report that the children who do this are generally competent and popular, [while] the children who most often violate gender boundaries...are especially unpopular.... On playgrounds, segregation is the rule, but cross-sex interest and attraction are nevertheless covertly present. Such attraction often manifests itself in the form of sexualized taunting and gossip. Yet the children themselves erect barriers against cross-sex attraction, and behave as though they are enforcing a taboo on cross-sex contact for the very reason that such contacts have sexual implications.”
(Maccoby, pp.70-3)

If the opening section is the most engaging - despite Maccoby’s (impeccable) soc-sci-speak - the intellectual heart of the book is the middle...for it is here that she demonstrates an almost uncanny ability to deflate the wild overstatements and poor experimental design that so bedevil the question of causation re gender difference. And, in their place, she - quite simply - reminds us that it is possible to do science in this area...

“One thing we need to have in mind from the beginning: there is probably no single primary cause for the complex phenomena described [above]. There is surely a complex causal web whose components feed into each other.... For example, although biological and social-shaping forces are discussed separately, it may be that societies adopt the stereotypes and roles they do in part as an accommodation to biological forces. And biological forces are themselves sometimes responsive to social conditions, [whilst] gender cognitions, too, can hardly be independent of other factors.... We have seen that the tendency for children to choose same-sex playmates has its beginning some time during the third year of life, and becomes progressively stronger between the ages of three and six. It is reasonable to expect, then, that there may be a limited set of factors that get the tendency started in very young children, but that these factors are then supplemented (or even replaced) by other factors as children grow older. Once same-sex social groups have begun to form, we may find that some of the factors that caused the sexes to separate in the first place operate to produce distinctive styles of interaction...[although] there may, however, be new factors emerging from group processes that were not present when segregation first began. [And] it is important to pay attention to the timing and sequencing of possible causal factors.”
(Maccoby, p.78)

“In considering same-sex preference, we are not dealing primarily with a personality dimension, but with something that distinguishes children...on the basis of their membership in one of two distinct categories: male and female. The point is an important one, [as]...phenomena which are strongly sex-dimorphic call for binary explanations. Some biological factors fit this requirement. So do any aspects of socialization...where nearly all girls are treated one way, and nearly all boys another. So do some aspects of gender cognition, such as the knowledge that one is either a male or a female. But other, popular, kinds of explanation, such as within-family pressures on boys to be assertive, or girls to be compliant, fit the requirements much less well.”
(Maccoby, p.84)

“As we consider the three major components in the explanatory web - biology, socialization, and cognition - it will become apparent that the different components do not bear equally on the phenomena to be explained. The biological component will be especially relevant to segregation itself, though it will also bear upon interaction styles. The socialization component will be more relevant to playstyle compatibility and the differentiation of the cultures that prevail in male and female groups, [while] the cognitive component will bear upon both these phenomena.”
(Maccoby, p.88)

To take one example...rather than simply accepting the validity of cross-primate comparisons, Maccoby rather directs our initial attention to the (exceedingly strong) developmental parallels in precisely this - gendered - area...clearly the most relevant evidence to the general case. And, although I do not have space to set out the full argument, she also makes judicious use of a recent proposal to break up the evolutionary behavioral continuum into types of action in different size groups...albeit seeing this as suggestive, rather than conclusive, given the state of the evidence.

And arguably, if anything, her attitude towards evidence is overly strict...meaning that when she makes a case forcefully, the impact is redoubled - given the context. And this, sadly, is becoming a much less common virtue (even in science), in this era of relentless self-promotion...

“Although humans, monkeys, and apes are all primates, they are obviously vastly different. Is there any reason to think that research on other primates is relevant to humans? I think we must take this work seriously, for two reasons: First: the sex-differentiated behavior patterns of interest here - the much higher incidences of rough play in young males, the greater interest in infants on the part of young females, and the preference for same-sex peers as playmates - are very similar in humans and nonhuman primates. And, second, the work with human children, limited though it is, does point to prenatal priming processes in humans that are similar to the processes that have been pinpointed more precisely in monkeys.... [Interestingly, such priming] mainly predisposes children of the two sexes to respond somewhat differently to specific kinds of social stimuli, rather than generating general temperamental differences.... [On the other hand,] rates of maturation are very similar...but recent studies suggest that there are at least two areas of growth where the two sexes may have somewhat different timetables. One is language development, and the other is the development of inhibitory capacities that underlie emotional self-regulation. In both these areas, there are scattered, intriguing findings pointing to faster maturation for girls, in the second and third years of life.... On the basis of this...we can begin to understand why girls would be the first to establish a clear preference for female playmates.”
(Maccoby, pp.114-16)

“When children are about age five, some gender divergence appears in the size of playgroups. Girls play in smaller groups, and more of their interactions with peers occur in dyads.... Boys, by contrast, spend more of their time in [larger groups...and, so] the two sexes...may differ in evolved behaviors that are appropriate for functioning in groups of different sizes...[for] we cannot expect behavior in groups always to have its roots in experiences individuals acquire in dyadic relationships.... [Unsurprisingly, therefore,] when children are playing alone, sex differences in activity levels are minimal. The differences appear primarily during play with peers...[so] we can see high rates of activity as a consequence (or, at least, an intrinsic element) of male-male play, rather than a cause of male playstyles.... [Moreover,] undercontrolled boys are not popular with other boys, while for both boys and girls, children who are ‘constructive copers’ tend to be popular with their peers.”
(Maccoby, pp.96-112)

Maccoby has nothing but (polite) contempt for the radical reductionists at both ends of the nature-nurture “debate”. And so, just as she - to my mind, correctly - situates biological causation within the mix, so too does she cut down to size the shibboleths of social particular, the massive overestimation of the role of parental socialization re gender difference:

“Childhood culture is different from adult culture in many ways. Childhood culture is far more gender-segregated than is adult culture, [while] the content of children’s games is passed on from one generation of children to another, not from adults to children. And interaction styles are different, too: especially among younger children, interaction is more ‘physical’ (particularly among boys) and briefer than it is among adults. We may expect to find, then, that there is much that happens in children’s playgroups that probably will not be best understood as an outcome of socialization pressures exerted by adults. When we try to understand the impact of adult socialization agents...the next point to remember is the fact...that, in many respects, adults treat children of the two sexes in very similar ways.... We do not see [in the modern West], then, a process in which parents are fostering the development of different global sex-typed personality traits in sons and daughters...[as] most of the differences in parental reactions to sons and daughters are small.... [However,] when it comes to the interaction styles that develop in all-male versus all-female playgroups, in-home socialization probably has a greater impact...[and] the content of children’s play obviously derives from the scripts that their adult culture provides...[whilst] peers may be more effective carriers of social change than the parent generation.”
(Maccoby, pp.144-50)

“‘Same as me’ categorizing [has] powerful effects. The social psychologist Tajfel...showed that when people believe that they share membership in a group, several predictable things follow: there is an attraction to in-group members, preferential treatment of in-group members, greater value assigned to in-group members, and a kind of homogenization of the out-group - out-group members are lumped together, and thought to have a few predominant characteristics, while members of the in-group are seen as more varied, more differentiated. Tajfel was able to show these effects when group membership was experimentally created on the basis of quite trivial shared characteristics, [so] we can only assume that sharing a gender category would be much more powerful.”
(Maccoby, p.155)

“Children’s formation of a core gender identity, and their knowledge about the gender of others, begin to take form about the same time that they begin to prefer same-sex playmates...[however, this also] probably comes at the same age for children of the two sexes, although...boys may be able to match the gender of self and others at a somewhat younger age. The achievement of gender identity, then, does not explain the fact that girls display same-sex preferences at a younger age to boys.... But, although achieving gender identity is surely not the only factor in the emergence and maintenance of gender segregation, it must contribute... [Meanwhile,] it is worth noting that only a modest preference for associating with others who are ‘same as me’...can result in substantial segregation [via cumulative positive feedback effects].... We do not know how early these own-sex biases begin to take effect, [although] probably they are not especially powerful at the time that same-sex preferences first appear.... Quite possibly, in-group favorite initially develops as a consequence, rather than a cause, of children’s associating more with members of their own sex; but, once developed, the sense of group identity that emerges from same-sex association further reinforces segregation.”
(Maccoby, p.155-86)

As Maccoby notes, chicken-and-egg questions turn up all over this work - an open invitation to pre-cooked assumptions, but a veritable minefield for someone genuinely concerned about the truth. However, careful reading of the whole of the evidence does allow many causal chains to be clarified, whilst others remain in the realm of pure which there is, quite simply, no real causal priority to be established. And, it’s entirely refreshing to read a distinguished scholar who fully accepts this fundamental point.

“Asymmetries in gender cognition match quite closely the behavioral asymmetries...the greater cohesiveness, greater distinctiveness, and greater exclusiveness of male groups.... [On the other hand,] there is no evidence that children must develop cognitive asymmetries before they show behavioral ones. The two kinds of processes seem to develop in synchrony, and may be seen as two sides of the same coin.”
(Maccoby, p.185)

“The fact that boys and girls generally have the same stereotypes concerning what are ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ activities does not lead them to have the same playmate preferences. Obviously, children of the two sexes find different things attractive in a peer, and this makes it unlikely that it is the stereotypes per se that are driving the preference. This conclusion is strengthened by the research showing that individual differences among children in their gender stereotyping are unrelated to how strongly they prefer same-sex playmates.”
(Maccoby, p.184)

Eleanor Maccoby’s The Two Sexes (1998) was/is a landmark in both developmental and gender studies, re-orienting the field around those emergent same-sex playmate preferences which harden into the bi-cultural world of childhood that - with local variation - makes every human society into one divided by gender. Whilst the last third of the book, on the adolescent & adult world (which I have only excerpted below) is interesting & suggestive, the earlier sections are conclusive in their demonstration that we have been looking in the wrong places for the real differences we sense between men and women.

Read before Deborah Tannen’s You Just Don’t Understand (1990) - already reviewed on this site - Maccoby’s work shows how the strong differences in communicative cultures Tannen explores arise...and it also supplies much which was scanted (for lack of space) in Katherine Nelson’s magisterial Young Minds in Social Worlds (2007). And, what’s more, there’s no real substitute - especially in the fraught fields of gender - for Maccoby’s honesty, clarity, and scholarship. Now, if we could just get her to a wider audience...

“The forces impelling the two sexes to occupy separate social spheres do not cease operating in adolescence and adulthood. Despite the powerful pull of heterosexual attraction...people continue to maintain same-sex friendship networks throughout.... And gender-based separation is strongly present in the workplace.... Cultures range all the way from those practising seclusion of modern industrialized societies, in which many adult couples go out together, and spend their social time with mixed-sex groups.... But, even in these more modern societies, things change when children are born.... It is tempting to speak about the similarities between childhood and adult patterns of interaction...but, interactive styles are not carried over intact...[and] adult contexts differ in terms of how much and whether these repertoires are called upon.... And, there are situations in which a childhood repertoire may actually need to be inhibited.... When adult couples become parents, the modes of interaction they employ with their children show some clear parallels with the interaction styles of their childhood. Mothers develop more reciprocal, more intimate relationships with their children, and tend to avoid confrontations with them, just as they did when interacting with their girl friends when they were much younger. Fathers deal with their children in a more imperative mode, but also play roughly with them, and engage them in light-hearted banter and teasing - modes of relating which also bear the stamp of...the male peer groups of childhood.... Issues of power become more complex when two parents together exercise authority...[and] I believe the great range of variation in co-parental authority indicates clearly that this is an aspect of male-female relations that is not inherent in our biology in any deep sense.... [However,] from the standpoint of achieving gender equality, the story that has been told in this book is sobering. It seems evident that we will not be able to make much progress...simply by giving little boys dolls to play with, or giving girls gender-neutral names and dressing them in blue jeans.... [And,] in the end, there is no reason to expect that men and women will want to make exactly the same choices about the way they invest their time. But, there is every reason to work toward equity in power and resources, so as to make each sex’s choices as free as possible.”
(Maccoby, pp.298-314)

John Henry Calvinist