Asymmetrical Information

From the desk of Mindles H. Dreck:

Make Love Not War

Bonobos, or pygmy chimpanzees, live in the equatorial rain forests of Congo, and have an extraordinarily happy existence.

And why? Because in bonobo society, the females are dominant. Just light dominance, so that it is more like a co-dominance, or equality between the sexes.

Maureen Dowd still thinks less male dominance would solve all the world's problems. This is her second recent column on the subject. Last time, she indicated Enron wouldn't have happened in a less male-dominated organization. As I objected in my Estrogenron post, Dowd's gender-benders place high expectations on women. What happens when women don't bring infinite peace and justice?

The "light dominance" of the Bonobo? We aspire to that level of civilization? How does she know they are "extraordinarily happy"? Well, apart from the constant sex:

And sex among bonobos is reminiscent of the Kamasutra. It's not just male-female -- they have same-gender sex, oral sex, masturbation, group sex. Like humans, they have face-to-face intercourse, making scientists wonder if they're more emotionally intimate than other animals. In zoos, the average bonobo initiates sexual contact every 1 1/2 hours.

Somehow, unlike Dowd, I don't think a switch to female dominance among humans would create this atmosphere. Hey, I could be wrong.

Dowd's complaint relates to a supposed male fear of powerful women, relayed to her by an easily-intimidated erstwhile suitor (and poor judge of "critical faculties"):

Men, he told me, prefer women who seem malleable and overawed. He said I would never find a mate, because if there's one thing men fear, it's a woman who uses her critical faculties. Will she be critical of absolutely everything?

...On a "60 Minutes" report on the book Sunday, Lesley Stahl talked to two young women who go to Harvard Business School. They agreed that while they are the perfect age to start families, it was not so easy to find the right mates.

Men, apparently, learn early to protect their eggshell egos from high-achieving women.

The girls said they hid the fact that they go to Harvard from guys they meet, because it's the kiss of death. "The H-bomb," they call it.

This may be true of the general population, but it isn't true of me or a lot of men I know. Conventional wisdom complains that men get bored of women. I find that to be particularly true when the women in question don't have their own lives. A high achiever can often make her abilities a powerful element of her most durable attractions. Virginia Postrel , who pointed out this latest Dowd, seems to concur.

If a woman is discriminating and judgemental, doesn't that make her affection a greater prize? Isn't "malleable and overawed" boring? Look at all the male fantasies in Hollywood movies and on TV shows (from West Wing to Everybody Loves Raymond). Women are constantly taking charge of their relationships with..well..less acute men. The James Bond-style gender roles seem to be the exception more than the rule these days.

The hard evidence cited in this article describes women trading off their peak fertility years with their careers. I don't think this has anything to do with alleged male intimidation by achievers. It has to do with childbirth realities, outdated workplace practices and in some cases, childrearing preferences.

Posted by Mindles H. Dreck at April 12, 2002 10:35 AM | Technorati inbound links"); ?>