From ARTHUR SYRED
There is an unfortunate dogmatic tendency among many feminists to claim
that all behavioural, mental or temperamental differences between men and
women are definitely the result of ‘stereotyped’ thinking about women’s
characteristics, rather than possibly resulting, at least in part, from
differences in genetic make-up (‘Splitting images: sex and science’, 15
February). Here they are failing to face up to the notorious difficulty
that exists whenever we try to discover the proportion of influence that
‘nurture’ or ‘nature’ has in determining practically any human characteristic.
Also, feminists often seem to be deliberately closing their eyes to obvious
resemblances between the social interactions of our nearest nonhuman relatives,
the apes, and ourselves. In particular, differences between the sexes in
respect of child-caring behaviour, dominating behaviour and aggressive and
submissive behaviour among the apes strongly suggest a strong instinctual
component in the corresponding differences of behaviour among human beings.
I happen to share with Helen Haste and other feminists the belief that
human beings need not be content with what we have inherited from our monkey
forebears, especially if that results in an unjust distribution of the pangs
of tedium and the delights of variety, discovery and adventure in our daily
lives. But I also fear that we may be heading for unforeseen disasters if
we depart too precipitantly and too radically from the patterns of living
within which our instincts evolved.
Arthur Syred Derby
