Chapter 11. Male Chauvinism
- Andrew Mytaf
- Mar 18
- 43 min read
Updated: Mar 19
Humanity often prides itself on having emancipated half its population—the half we rather grandly call women. The disgraceful era when women were treated as inferior beings, property, or mere objects of desire is, we like to believe, behind us. Yet, according to evolutionists, the latter point remains stubbornly relevant. After all, where else would illegitimate children come from if we insist on viewing evolutionary progress solely through the brain's pursuit of the "greatest good"?
Let us not forget that humanity nearly brought itself to the brink of extinction during the Renaissance—simply by prioritising gallantry and the cultivation of personal qualities over good old-fashioned physical attributes.
We can leave such indignations to future generations—those who will fully comprehend the primitiveness of our current pedagogical methods—and instead turn to the topic of "terminological inequality." Why, in this era of gender equality, do we still acknowledge differences between men and women rather than eliminate all reference to them? The answer lies in medicine. It's widely known that the same medication might require different dosages for men and women due to factors like body composition and metabolism. Of course, I say this in jest; the real differences go far beyond medicine, necessitating distinct approaches in many areas of life.
Take physical labour, for example. We could try fostering a societal narrative that women are just as physically strong as men, encouraging them to take on the most demanding jobs requiring intensive exertion. We could increase wages in these fields, plaster banners featuring cheerful women wielding pickaxes or carrying cement bags and instil a love for such professions in girls from nursery school onward. However, such an approach would defy common sense. Why impose an artificial form of equality on women—one that damages their health and is economically unviable?
Interestingly, even without deliberate narratives to reinforce it, one can observe situations where women are exploited by their partners. Personally, I experienced a form of culture shock upon arriving in an English-speaking country, where I frequently noticed women carrying the heaviest burdens—grocery bags, purchased goods, and even children—while their male companions walked alongside, often embracing them or leaning slightly on their shoulders.
At first, I assumed these instances were isolated or rare. However, years of observation in various settings revealed this as a consistent trend among those under 30-35 years old. The relentless promotion of absolute equality seems to have convinced the younger generation to disregard the biological differences between the "weaker" and "stronger" sexes—a phrase not meant to demean women, as one young man accused me when I questioned his habit of letting his girlfriend carry everything. Proudly gesturing at her skinny arm, he called it her "bicep," suggesting she was perfectly capable of handling the load.
In reality, this aphorism reflects biological differences, not inferiority. Rather, it highlights the natural principle of distributing tasks according to abilities and efficiency.
Before delving further, I will briefly outline a series of established facts about how male and female organisms differ. I understand that this might seem banal to you, but I ask for your patience. The intentional avoidance of discussing these differences has rendered them non-obvious to many, despite the reality that certain tasks are naturally easier for some individuals than others.
1. Different Sets of Chromosomes
Men and women differ fundamentally in their chromosomal makeup. Men possess an unequal pair of sex chromosomes: a large X chromosome paired with a significantly smaller Y chromosome. In contrast, women have two X chromosomes. This symmetry provides a backup copy of genetic material, helping to correct errors and lower the frequency of mutations. As a result, conditions such as autism, schizophrenia, and many other genetic disorders are less common in women.
Biologically speaking, men can be considered 'mutants' due to the presence of the Y chromosome paired with a single X chromosome. The absence of a second X chromosome eliminates the genetic redundancy required to mitigate disruptions, contributing to higher susceptibility to genetic disorders. This imbalance also partly explains the challenges many women face in finding a suitable partner despite the fact that male conceptions outnumber female conceptions. A significant proportion of male embryos fail to reach birth due to higher rates of implantation failure, miscarriages, and early childhood mortality.
Moreover, the paired X chromosomes in women contribute to a phenomenon known as "accelerated maturation," which explains why girls, on average, develop faster in various aspects, including the maturation of brain centres.
The Y chromosome, however, influences the development and functioning of the brain's dopaminergic system. Research indicates that men, on average, exhibit higher activity in this system than women. This difference may partially account for gender-specific behaviours and vulnerabilities to certain disorders. For instance, increased activity in the dopaminergic system is linked to a higher prevalence of alcoholism and drug addiction among men. It may also explain men's greater inclination toward seeking new sensations and engaging in riskier behaviours.
Furthermore, dopamine neurons play a critical role in the development and control of motor skills. Interestingly, Parkinson's disease—a condition characterised by the degeneration of dopaminergic neurons—shows a marked gender disparity, with men being about twice as likely to develop the disease as women.
2. Hormonal Differences
During intrauterine development, the formation of male sexual organs triggers the production of significant amounts of testosterone. This hormone, coursing through the bloodstream of the developing foetus, sets the stage for changes that will, quite dramatically, shape their entire future life—particularly by influencing cellular functions and moulding the brain and nervous system. Interestingly, research suggests a link between higher prenatal testosterone levels and language development: the higher the testosterone levels, the smaller a child's vocabulary tends to be at the age of two. This might explain why girls typically begin speaking earlier than boys. However, hormonal influences are complex, and hormone levels can vary independently of a child's biological sex due to a multitude of factors.
Testosterone's impact is extensive, influencing vital processes such as oxygen exchange, metabolism, energy regulation, and overall body structure. Many of the differences between sexes described in this chapter are primarily underpinned by two factors: chromosomal composition and the influence of sex hormones during foetal development and sexual maturation.
3. Immune System
Some diseases affect men more than women, and vice versa. Until recently, this phenomenon was poorly understood. However, researchers from the University of Melbourne have taken a step closer to uncovering its causes, as reported by Science Daily.
The key differences between male and female immune systems lie in the strength and efficiency of their protective mechanisms. Women tend to have stronger immune responses, offering better protection against infections compared to men. This evolutionary advantage is logical: women's primary biological role—carrying a foetus, giving birth, and nurturing the child over an extended period—demands robust immunity to safeguard these vital processes.
From an evolutionary perspective, the reproductive role of men is comparatively simple: the transfer of genetic material. Once this task is fulfilled, nature appears to lose interest in them. In essence, a man's primary biological function is considered complete after procreation—though exceptions do exist. In some species, males have evolved to protect their offspring, allowing females to reallocate energy-intensive biological mechanisms toward the development of unique and specialised traits.
Below, we will explore these features in more detail, using the example of the development of the prefrontal lobe area.
Interestingly, the immune system's cellular components (e.g., lymphocytes, macrophages, plasmocytes) and humoral agents (e.g., antibodies, cytokines) do not inherently differ by sex. However, immunity is intricately linked to the nervous and endocrine systems, where sexual differences abound. Over 1,100 genes have been identified that contribute to variations in immune responses between men and women. These genetic differences underscore the profound interplay between sex-specific biology and immune system function.
Oestrogen receptors have been identified in various immune cells, including B and T lymphocytes, dendritic cells, and natural killer (NK) cells. Women generally produce higher levels of antibodies through B cells, and oestrogens play a significant role in enhancing innate immune responses. These hormones stimulate the production of adhesion molecules, which allow lymphocytes to localise at sites of damage, as well as chemokines, substances that regulate local immune reactions such as inflammation. A more efficient immune system in women is often linked to elevated levels of cytokines and other immune mediators, leading to a heightened response to infections and injuries. Research also suggests that women exhibit faster bone healing after fractures, attributed to a more active regenerative capacity in their bone tissue.
Pregnancy represents a period of heightened immune protection for the female body. Elevated levels of female sex hormones during this time safeguard both the mother and the developing foetus. Through the umbilical cord, maternal antibodies and immune cells are transferred to the foetus, providing a foundational layer of immune defence. This maternal protection continues postpartum, as antibodies are further delivered through breast milk, offering extended immunity to the newborn.
With age, the immune system undergoes changes, and these changes manifest differently in men and women. Women tend to sustain higher immune activity into older age, which is associated with increased longevity and a reduced risk of numerous diseases. However, this robust immune activity may also contribute to a higher prevalence of autoimmune diseases in women, where the immune system mistakenly attacks the body's own tissues. These differences are believed to stem from hormonal influences, particularly the prolonged effects of oestrogen.
4. Circulatory System
The normal erythrocyte count in women is approximately 3.8–5.2 × 10¹² cells/L, compared to 4.3–5.7 × 10¹² cells/L in men. Women, on average, have 8–10 ml less blood volume per kilogram of body weight than men, and their haemoglobin concentration is typically 10–15% lower. Normal haemoglobin values range from 120–160 g/L for women and 130–170 g/L for men. Furthermore, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) is usually higher in women, with norms of 2–15 mm/hour compared to 1–10 mm/hour for men.
These differences translate into a lower oxygen-carrying capacity in women. For instance, while men require 6 litres of blood to transport 1 litre of oxygen, women need 7 litres. Additionally, the female body contains less total water due to a higher proportion of adipose tissue. On average, women have 50–55% body water compared to 60–65% of men. This makes women more prone to dehydration, where even minor fluid deficits can quickly lead to organ dysfunction, compromised cardiovascular performance, reduced immune activity, and increased sensitivity to stress.
Despite these differences, the female circulatory system has unique advantages. Women have more elastic blood vessels, influenced by oestrogen, which provides greater adaptability to changes in blood pressure and flow. Moreover, women tolerate gradual blood loss far better than men. While losing a litre of blood might send a man straight to intensive care, a woman might simply wonder if she needs another coffee—thanks to their monthly endurance training.
Women's hearts are smaller in size and myocardial mass compared to men's, with narrower vessels and thinner walls. They contract more frequently but eject less blood per beat into the circulatory system. Women also tend to have a faster-resting pulse and exhibit distinct differences in blood pressure regulation. Functionally, the female cardiovascular system may match the male in endurance-related activities but is generally less equipped for strength-oriented tasks.
The endocrine system significantly influences the function of the heart and blood vessels. Oestrogens, which are abundant in the female body, have a protective effect on the cardiovascular system. They improve vascular elasticity and support heart muscle health, reducing the risk of thrombotic complications. As a result, premenopausal women enjoy a lower risk of cardiovascular pathologies compared to men. However, after menopause, the decline in hormonal protection leads to an increased prevalence of heart and vascular diseases among women.
Women are more sensitive to certain risk factors, particularly tobacco smoke. Prolonged smoking poses a greater danger to women than to men. For example, smoking just one cigarette a day increases the likelihood of ischemic heart disease by 48% in men and by 59% in women. Similarly, the risk of stroke rises by 25% in men and 31% in women.
Cardiovascular diseases also manifest differently in women compared to men. Men often exhibit classic symptoms of heart disease, making diagnosis more straightforward. Women, however, frequently experience atypical symptoms, complicating accurate diagnosis and timely treatment. For instance, one in five women with a heart attack reports no pain at all, severely hindering the likelihood of early intervention. The reasons for these differences remain unclear.
Women have a more pronounced and extensive blood supply to the pelvic region and its organs, a feature closely tied to reproductive processes. Unlike men, women are more affected by tight clothing in the pelvic area, which can influence overall health and development. This anatomical difference underscores the need for tailored health recommendations to support cardiovascular and reproductive well-being in women.
5. Body Temperature
The hormones oestrogen and progesterone, present in higher concentrations in women, play a significant role in regulating body and skin temperature. Oestrogen promotes blood vessel dilation in the extremities, allowing more heat to escape into the surrounding air. In contrast, progesterone causes constriction of skin vessels, reducing blood flow to certain areas to prioritise warming the internal organs. This dynamic hormonal balance fluctuates throughout the menstrual cycle, affecting women's thermal sensitivity.
As a result, women's hands, feet, and ears tend to remain approximately three degrees Celsius cooler than men's, even though their core body temperature is generally higher on average. Core temperature peaks about a week after ovulation, corresponding to a rise in progesterone levels. During this phase, women may feel particularly sensitive to cooler outdoor temperatures, seeking warmth more than usual.
Interestingly, while women's extremities are cooler, the higher core temperature may explain why many women prefer warmer environments. This phenomenon isn't exclusive to humans; studies of birds and mammals reveal similar patterns. Males of these species often gather in cooler, shaded areas, while females and their offspring remain in warmer, sunlit conditions.
6. Metabolism
The metabolic rates of men and women differ significantly, influenced by both muscle mass and hormonal status. In women, oestrogens can influence appetite independently of actual energy needs, sometimes driving a "specific request" for nutrients to support potential future offspring. In contrast, men's appetite operates on a more linear principle, closely tied to their immediate energy requirements. Men also typically have a higher basal metabolic rate due to their greater muscle mass. Meanwhile, women, being biologically adapted for reproduction, have a slower metabolism and a tendency to store fat, which explains why weight gain occurs more easily for them.
It is well-documented that an imbalance in body composition, particularly insufficient fat, can disrupt a woman's menstrual cycle and increase the risk of pregnancy complications.
The genetic basis for these differences is also striking. For instance, studies reveal that up to 1,000 genes in the liver function differently between men and women, affecting various metabolic processes.
Women are also more prone to certain digestive disorders, such as irritable bowel syndrome. However, their more sensitive gag reflex often acts as a natural safeguard against many gastrointestinal complications. Men, on the other hand, demonstrate a digestive resilience that continues to baffle scientists—some have even managed to consume bizarre items, including entire aeroplanes and scrap metal. Given the state of the environment today, perhaps this peculiar talent could be repurposed to tackle the world's plastic waste problem!
7. Bone Tissues
Men typically have greater bone density than women, a characteristic largely attributed to higher testosterone levels, which enhance bone tissue strength. Women, by contrast, often experience a marked decline in bone density after menopause due to reduced oestrogen levels, increasing the risk of osteoporosis and fractures.
Anatomically, women display adaptations tailored to their biological roles. Their thoracic spine is relatively shorter than men's, while the cervical and lumbar regions are longer, enhancing flexibility and mobility. This flexibility is further supported by a more elastic ligamentous system, which plays a crucial role in childbearing. Women's ribcage is typically shorter and proportionally wider, positioning the diaphragm higher, while their shoulders are narrower, and their pelvis is wider and deeper. These anatomical differences influence physical performance; for example, increased pelvic rotational movement during running results in reduced efficiency compared to men. Additionally, women's skeletons are lighter, more elastic, and mobile, though less robust. Their lower centre of gravity improves balance but can limit certain forms of physical exertion.
Special caution is advised for young girls regarding activities that increase intra-abdominal pressure, such as lifting heavy weights or jumping from significant heights onto hard surfaces, as these can negatively impact the development of pelvic organs.
For those who believe employing women in physically demanding roles like manual labour is a solution to social and economic challenges, consider the stark differences in strength capacity. Historical records suggest Paul Anderson may have lifted an incredible 627.5 kg and allegedly supported 2,844 kg from racks, though these claims lack thorough verification. Contemporary, reliable records demonstrate men's superior physical strength: Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson holds the world record for a 501 kg deadlift, and Mitchell Hooper achieved a 545 kg Hummer Tire Deadlift (performed with Hummer tires, which alter the lift's starting height compared to standard plates). In contrast, the women's deadlift record, set by Tamara Walcott in July 2022, stands at an impressive 290 kg.
While performance-enhancing substances like steroids are available and often used during training to improve strength, athletes are required to abstain from these substances for a designated period before competitions to comply with regulations. Even with such practices, including matched dosages during training, women's bodies are unable to achieve strength levels comparable to men's due to inherent physiological differences. These disparities underline the biological limits that performance-enhancing substances cannot overcome.
Physiological differences can be listed for a very long time, but this would be a rather tedious read, so I will limit myself to just a list where specific gender differences are observed: muscle fibres, fat tissue distribution, skin composition, the epidermis, respiratory systems, endocrine functions, tactility, taste receptors, and differences in the volume, structure, and functionality of brain neurons. For example, the visual cortex shows notable variations in size, influencing focus, peripheral vision, and colour sensitivity. Women, for instance, exhibit heightened activity in two types of colour receptors (red and green), while one of these types is typically less active in men, whose evolutionary role did not require them to distinguish ripe, stale, or poisonous foods by colour for feeding offspring.
Similarly, while women do not necessarily have a greater number of olfactory receptors, they have more neurons specialised in processing olfactory signals. This is particularly evident during pregnancy when their sense of smell can surpass that of men by several magnitudes.
Hearing differences are subtler. While neither sex has a clear overall advantage, they display sensitivity to different frequency ranges: men are more attuned to lower frequencies (perhaps to detect distant threats), while women are more sensitive to higher frequencies, such as a child's cry. This may also be influenced by differences in the auricular structure: women generally have more rounded, less angular auricles, while men often have larger, wider ear canals, even with similar head sizes.
Women's heightened sensory sensitivity extends beyond their sense organs to their nervous systems, which are finely attuned to social interaction. Numerous studies suggest that women excel in reading emotions and analysing their underlying causes. They also tend to experience conflicts or remarks more intensely, whether in professional or familial settings. This heightened sensitivity likely has evolutionary origins, rooted in their reliance on social dynamics and the cooperation of those responsible for protecting them during the prolonged period of raising offspring.
This heightened sensitivity to emotional cues not only implies greater emotional awareness but also higher stress levels, which in turn necessitate longer recovery periods. On average, a middle-aged woman requires at least 8 hours of sleep for full recovery, whereas a man can typically manage with 7.5 hours or less.
And then there's melatonin, the so-called "sleep hormone." Surely, one might think, this would be immune to gender differences—but not quite. Women reach their peak melatonin production earlier than men, which may explain why wives are dozing off in front of the TV while their husbands are just settling into the start of a late-night movie marathon.
Adding to this is an intriguing observation from tomographic studies of sleep. These studies have revealed that the onset of sleep triggers a decrease in functional brain activity, driven by neurons that lower blood pressure. Cerebrospinal fluid flows into the brain to maintain balance and prevent brain decompression. Interestingly, the studies also observed that brain activity decreases more significantly in men than in women during sleep. This difference may once again be attributed to evolutionary factors: for women, the need to care for offspring likely required a heightened state of vigilance, making overly deep sleep less practical.
It is worth noting, however, that falling asleep in laboratory conditions can be challenging, potentially influencing the study's results. Or perhaps the women in the study were simply too busy wondering how their brains appeared on the monitors!
Summarising all the physiological data, including numerous unmentioned details, I realised—despite the gentlemanly constraints of my era—a growing sense of responsibility to care for my wife. I came to understand that women require a far larger volume of positive emotions than men, which can be fostered by creating an atmosphere that reduces stress. To this end, we should consider legally establishing significantly longer and more frequent holiday schedules for women compared to men. At the very least, we could reignite campaigns encouraging the simple act of giving up seats to women on public transport.
But alas, in moments of societal discontent—fuelled by nervous tension, depression, or bitterness—the loudest voices, amplified by the cultural megaphone, proclaim that women need nothing from men. Phrases like "gentlemanliness is merely disguised arrogance and a tool for humiliating women" have gained traction. The irony lies in the fact that the dominant male majority, striving to be gentlemanly, eagerly embraced this narrative and began eradicating gentlemanly behaviours in themselves and others.
And thus, the circle closes itself in perfect symmetry.
Ephemeral Differences in the Brain
When delving into gender differences in the brain, it is crucial to acknowledge that the matter is far more intricate than general physiology, given the brain's remarkable plasticity and its capacity to both inherit and acquire specific traits. Despite this malleability, nature operates by its own unwavering principles, ensuring species survival by solidifying traits that enhance reproductive success. If new physiological characteristics fail to improve reproductive efficiency, they are unlikely to become established as sexual characteristics of the species, whether in general physiology or in the brain.
The nuances of sexual behaviour naturally imply corresponding differences in the nervous system. However, the scope and significance of these differences—whether confined solely to the neocortex or involving a broader chain of brain regions responsible for reproduction and social behaviours—remain a contentious topic. What was once primarily a scientific debate has now been entangled in political discourse.
On one hand, recognising these differences is crucial for advancing research and improving fields such as women's medicine. Ignoring them risks stalling scientific progress, increasing stress and workloads, and introducing a range of social and economic challenges. On the other hand, acknowledging these distinctions risks perpetuating biases in employment, interpersonal relationships, and societal expectations.
Legislation can regulate these issues to mitigate their impact—and indeed, it has. However, many reasonably argue that such measures will remain ineffective as long as the perception of physiological differences between the sexes persists in the collective human consciousness.
In this context, while numerous independent studies have consistently observed differences in brain structure between males and females, the focus has shifted. Researchers are now less concerned with distinctly male or female morphologies and instead concentrate on the unique combinations of gender-related characteristics present in each individual.
A landmark study in this field was conducted by Daphna Joel and her team at Tel Aviv University. Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), they analysed the brains of approximately 1,400 individuals at a resolution of 250–300 microns (roughly 1/4 millimetre). While this resolution is sufficient to observe structural features visible to the naked eye, it is far less precise than examining an open brain with a simple magnifying glass—let alone a microscope, which was employed by earlier researchers.
The researchers reached the following conclusion: the simultaneous presence of anatomical differences in 10 brain regions—areas commonly identified by pathologists worldwide (and up to 100 regions noted by some neurobiologists)—was observed in only 5–8% of participants. The remaining participants exhibited a combination of "male" and "female" traits. The study did not disclose the exact percentage distribution or the specific configuration of these traits across different subjects, aside from noting that 100% matches were rare exceptions.
From these findings emerges a new postulate: the human brain is a mosaic comprising features associated with both sexes as well as a spectrum of intermediate traits. This concept is partially well-established, observable to psychologists, and recognised by neurobiologists, as gene expression can lead to non-standard combinations and deviations from genetic programming. (These external markers also allow researchers to identify suitable experimental subjects for specific data collection.)
Indeed, each brain is as unique and unrepeatable in its variations as individual faces are in their features. Yet it is widely acknowledged that a person's sex can be determined with approximately 75% accuracy based on facial features. This is because, while faces vary significantly due to ethnic traits, environmental factors, and individual differences, the underlying skull exhibits relatively consistent sexual dimorphisms. These differences, observed across countless generations of our ancestors, are particularly notable in the following characteristics:
• Greater angularity and muscle attachment: Male skulls exhibit more pronounced angular outlines and greater development of tuberosities and roughness, particularly at the attachment points of the neck, occipital, temporal, and masticatory muscles. In contrast, female skulls have smoother and more even bone surfaces, likely due to less pronounced tuberosity and roughness. This smoother appearance may also correlate with the different distribution of facial fat tissues between sexes.
• Lower jaw size and weight: Men typically have larger and heavier lower jaws, with more pronounced tuberosity at the angles and along the lower edge of the inner surface of the chin. The average weight of a male lower jaw is 80-85 grams, compared to 60-63 grams in females. Male jaws often feature more vertical ascending branches, while female jaws have a more horizontal orientation. Additionally, the angles of the lower jaw in men tend to turn outward, a feature less commonly observed in women.
• Forehead and crown shape: Male foreheads often slope backwards toward the occiput, transitioning into a rounded crown, which may feature a ridge along the sagittal suture. Female foreheads, by contrast, are more vertical and transition into a flatter crown shape.
• Facial-to-cranial proportion: In men, the facial region of the skull is generally more developed in relation to the cranial portion, appearing longer and wider than in women.
• Eye socket structure: Male eye sockets are typically lower, rectangular, and have thickened, blunt upper edges. Female eye sockets are higher, rounder or oval and have thinner, sharper upper edges. These differences also relate to anatomical variations in the eyes and surrounding tissues.
• Mastoid processes: Male skulls feature more prominent mastoid processes, often with pointed apices. Female skulls, on the other hand, exhibit blunt mastoid process apices.
• Nasolabial angle and frontonasal point: The nasolabial angle in men is more pronounced, and the frontonasal point is typically deepened. Female skulls exhibit smoother transitions between the frontal bone and nasal bones, with the frontonasal point often less pronounced.
• Alveolar process: Female skulls more frequently show upper alveolar prognathism, where the alveolar process of the upper jaw protrudes forward.
• External protuberances and arches: Men tend to have a significantly more pronounced external occipital protuberance, as well as prominent brow ridges and glabellar arches. (If we were to apply hypotheses of phenotypic adaptations for all brain-related differences, one might speculate that these ridges developed exclusively in response to the invention of the Viking axe.)
Exceptions to these features are exceedingly rare, and even when they occur, they do not indicate a disruption of the genotypic program. Rather, they reflect the individual hormonal balance shaped during foetal development and adolescent maturation, contributing to each person's unique physiological and anatomical traits. Additionally, it is important to consider that facial features can be significantly altered through surgical interventions affecting skin, muscles, fat, bone tissues, and cartilage.
A similar phenomenon is observed with the gendered structures of the brain. While the brain's structure and characteristics are unique to each individual, certain universal differences persist with remarkable consistency. Here are some of the most pronounced examples:
1. In the male brain, one hemisphere is typically more dominant than the other, often the left, depending on the lateralisation of functions. In contrast, the female brain tends to exhibit more balanced functionality between the right and left hemispheres.
2. Women generally have more verbal centres in the brain, located in both hemispheres and often of greater volume. This anatomical difference contributes to their superior recovery of speech abilities after a stroke compared to men.
3. The inferior parietal lobe, linked to mathematical calculations, is usually larger in men from birth. However, in women, this area can increase in activity and connectivity density over time, while the male counterpart may remain underutilised.
4. Neurochemical communication, including neuron connectivity, neurotransmitter secretion, and volume, shows subtle but crucial differences between sexes. These differences influence the effects and permissible dosages of pharmacological drugs. For instance, antisocial personality disorder is more frequently diagnosed in men, while borderline personality disorder is more common in women due to variations in neurochemical processes.
5. Women have richer blood circulation in certain regions of the brain, which may contribute to differences in cognitive and emotional processing.
6. Structures of the limbic system, responsible for emotional processing, memory, and sensory signal recognition, also differ between sexes, even at the cellular level. For instance, women tend to have a larger hippocampus, which is essential for forming long-term memories. The hypothalamus, which regulates appetite, sexual desire, and the sleep-wake cycle, also shows consistent sexual differences in specific nuclei.
7. The amygdala, associated with threat detection and stress response, is, on average, larger in men, potentially contributing to differences in how threats are processed and acted upon.
8. The premammillary nucleus in the male brain is generally larger, which may correlate with more pronounced territorial behaviours and ambition compared to women.
9. The Insular Lobe (Insula): Although not a part of the limbic system, the insula is intricately linked to it and plays a role in emotion processing, pain perception, homeostasis regulation, and interpersonal behaviour. The insula and limbic system work together to manage emotional reactions. Studies indicate that women typically have a larger volume of grey matter in the anterior insula and exhibit higher activity levels when processing emotional stimuli. Furthermore, the female brain demonstrates stronger functional connections between the insula and other brain areas involved in emotional processing. Women also tend to show greater activation of the insula in response to pain stimuli, and this heightened activity may correlate with their pronounced empathy.
10. Interhemispheric and Intrahemispheric Connections: Men tend to have stronger connections within individual brain hemispheres, while women display stronger interhemispheric connections via the corpus callosum. Additionally, the female brain uses white matter approximately 10 times more frequently than the male brain. White matter facilitates network interaction, enabling brain centres to connect with grey matter. This structural difference allows women to switch tasks more seamlessly and process multiple sensory signals simultaneously. Conversely, the male brain relies more heavily on grey matter—about seven times more than the female brain. Grey matter specialises in processing specific actions and information in a focused manner, which explains why men often find multitasking more challenging. In 2013, researchers from the University of Pennsylvania hypothesised and confirmed through a study that women often outperform men in tasks requiring multitasking. Their findings revealed that the female brain engages a greater number of neural networks for simultaneous task processing. This increased engagement may explain women's greater need for rest and longer sleep durations.
11. Genetic and Neurochemical Differences: Men and women exhibit differences in gene expression related to the development and functioning of the nervous system, including the activity of neurons, synapses, and neurotransmitters. Sensitivity to neurotransmitters like serotonin, dopamine, and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) varies between the sexes, influencing nervous system activity and potentially accounting for differences in behaviour and mental health. Epigenetic factors, such as DNA methylation and chromatin modifications, further contribute to these distinctions. These mechanisms are strongly influenced by sex hormones, underscoring the inevitability of such differences in shaping the nervous systems of men and women.
12. Brain Volume: A common belief holds that the male brain is heavier simply because men, on average, are larger. However, scientific evidence challenges this assumption. Comparative studies and routine measurements by pathologists across various countries reveal a more nuanced reality. Even when comparing individuals of the same height, the male brain typically weighs at least 30 grams more. On average, the male brain is 11–13% heavier and 10% larger in volume than the female brain, irrespective of overall body proportions.
It is noteworthy that these comparisons did not factor in overall body mass, as men generally have denser bones and larger internal organs, such as lungs and the heart, even when they share the same build as women. Similar findings have been observed in experiments on primates—chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas—where female brains are consistently smaller than their male counterparts.
However, brain size does not directly correlate with cognitive abilities. Adult brain mass typically ranges from 1100 to 1400 grams, with some exceptions where individuals exceed 2000 grams. Interestingly, such disproportionate brain sizes are sometimes associated with congenital mental deviations. Research suggests that brain mass alone is not a reliable indicator of intellectual or cognitive superiority. Instead, factors such as brain structure, neural connectivity, and the efficiency of information processing play far more significant roles.
That said, studies have identified a correlation in which approximately 75% of geniuses and highly talented individuals had above-average brain mass (exceeding 1400 grams), including notable women. This finding shows that brain size may correlate with ability but is not a measure of intelligence.
13. Variability and Stability: The male brain exhibits greater variability in the volume of different brain regions and cortex sizes, while the female brain is more consistent in these parameters. Women benefit from a more robust biological system due to the duplicate X chromosome showing greater stability in IQ scores than men. They are also less prone to conditions like mental retardation and other cognitive deviations. Moreover, the female brain matures earlier and ages more slowly than the male brain, highlighting distinct differences in neurological development.
14. Frontal Lobe Differences: Gender differences are evident in the frontal lobes, particularly in the volume of associative zones. These small but crucial regions, comprising roughly 10% of the frontal lobe area, are vital for inhibitory functions and solving complex, non-biological problems such as planning, decision-making, and abstract thinking. The male brain often gains weight from larger associative areas in the frontal lobes and the inferior parietal region. However, this increased volume does not always translate to heightened activity. While these regions are larger in men, they exhibit comparable levels of activity in the female brain.
This disparity likely represents reserve potential, developed over time as men historically engaged less with offspring, exhibited less caution, ventured into unfamiliar environments, and faced the constant need to navigate and adapt. This relentless pursuit of better living conditions or their artificial creation may have equipped men with additional capacity for spatial analysis and environmental problem-solving.
The common satirical comparison to the whale brain—where larger volume does not equate to intellectual superiority over humans—misses the point, as it fails to consider species-specific adaptations. If humans lived underwater, faced no natural predators, and required minimal environmental interaction, our brains might also trade "excess" neural connections for fatty layers. Interestingly, modern men, unlike women (whose biological roles have remained more constant), are increasingly finding themselves in these "whale-like" conditions—lounging on the couch, ordering delivered pizza, and dodging dangers or challenges entirely. For some, the greatest threats are no longer predators or famine but lagging Wi-Fi and the terrifying prospect of running out of snacks.
Let's consider the most intriguing differences:
Behavioural Peculiarities
a) Early Behavioural Preferences
Studies indicate that even babies aged 9 to 17 months—an age when they are unlikely to grasp the concept of male and female distinctions—show a preference for toys stereotypically associated with their gender.
Moreover, differences between the sexes are evident even when measured using implicit tests. These tests bypass conscious decision-making, suggesting that the observed behaviours are not merely the result of societal stereotypes but may stem from innate predispositions.
This idea is further supported by research on non-human primates. Female monkeys were observed to interact with dolls in a manner resembling maternal behaviour, while male monkeys showed little interest in such objects. Instead, male monkeys gravitated toward unfamiliar objects, treating them as tools or examining their details—behaviours rarely exhibited by females.
These findings raise the question: are such behavioural differences rooted in intrinsic brain structures, or they evolved for a specific purpose? While the debate continues, the consistency of these patterns across species suggests that these differences may serve a functional role, likely tied to survival and reproduction.
b) Spatial Orientation:
Research conducted at the University of Chicago highlights that males, across a range of animal species, outperform females in spatial orientation tasks. This finding undermines the long-standing hypothesis that such differences stem purely from human evolutionary roles, such as men being hunters and women gatherers. Since similar differences are evident in species with no such occupational distinctions, researchers suggest hormonal factors may play a pivotal role in shaping these abilities.
The primary law of quantitative trait genetics asserts that traits influenced by natural selection tend to be inherited by both sexes unless they are demonstrably harmful to the female organism. This caveat does not appear to apply to the discussed traits, allowing for their transmission across generations.
However, greater variability in female brain morphology might carry risks for population stability, including the potential for deviations. Traits that reduce interest in offspring or decrease attractiveness to the opposite sex could also be disadvantageous. Male individuals, influenced by instinct and biological markers associated with reproductive health, are more likely to show interest in female behaviours that signal nurturing and care for offspring. These traits likely serve as evolutionary signals, ensuring reproductive success and the continued survival of the species.
c) Emotions:
The hypothalamus and pituitary gland—two essential components of the endocrine system—function differently in men and women, despite their close interconnection. These intersexual differences affect the activity of the hypothalamic-pituitary axis, which regulates cortisol secretion in the adrenal glands. In women, cortisol levels typically peak in response to social stress, while in men, they rise during motivational stress, particularly in problem-solving scenarios.
The female body also exhibits a distinct physiological reaction to stress compared to the male body. Women release higher levels of stress hormones into the bloodstream, a response influenced by progesterone. This heightened "alarm system" likely evolved to protect not only their own lives but also the lives of their offspring, enabling rapid responses to potential threats. Men, on the other hand, often respond more directly to immediate danger—or, in some cases, only after the danger has "packed up and left."
Women's intrinsic social orientation, critical for nurturing children and fostering relationships, also makes them more prone to ruminating over unpleasant situations and negative emotions. These tendencies often revolve around relationships, whether with close family members or colleagues.
d) Differences in perception of information:
In conversation, men often focus on extracting the essence, while women tend to seek details and the overall atmosphere of the narrative. Women want to "feel" the story, processing information with both hemispheres of the brain. This often leaves them puzzled by a man's apparent indifference to nuances they consider vital.
This distinction is also evident in broader interests: men are generally drawn to mechanics and the physical functionality of phenomena, while women are captivated by the details and the manner in which processes unfold.
For example, in a student laboratory observing bacteria, boys and girls might offer different observations: "How chaotically it moves!", "What is it eating?", "It's so transparent!", "It bends its tail to turn around!" One can easily guess which remarks are more often made by whom. However, this does not imply that gender-specific brain focuses (shaped by evolutionary necessity) are incapable of noticing what the opposite sex notices. If an individual sets their mind to a task, their brain will adapt to perform it (thanks to the brain's remarkable plasticity). The difference lies merely in the genetic predispositions of the sexes.
There is no such thing as a better or worse brain. Each develops distinct qualities suited to specific challenges and contexts, shaped by differing biological and environmental influences. While these qualities may align with general tendencies, significant overlaps in capabilities exist, and much depends on individual variations. Ultimately, these observations are grounded in patterns rather than rigid rules.
Ideological Evolution
Imagine, for a moment, that we collectively begin denying the physical differences between the sexes—even those that are plainly observable and easily testable, such as the general physical strength of males. Then again, perhaps we don't need to imagine it; we're already at the stage where suppressing testosterone in a fully developed male body is deemed sufficient to erase such distinctions.
Fine, let's consider something more unequivocal: men don't give birth. But no—scratch that—it seems even this is no longer an irrefutable truth.
What else, then? No, let's steer clear of the bathroom debate, and we'd best avoid questioning the premise that children should lack full autonomy over their bodies until adulthood—after all, these, too, are increasingly sensitive topics.
Frankly, I'm at a loss. What remains as an example of absurd denial of obvious differences? Ah, yes—the chromosomal distinction between XX and XY! Yet even here, I recently watched a science communicator diminish its significance, proclaiming it trivial and infinitely malleable. As if to underline his point, he sketched a little tail onto the Y chromosome on a whiteboard, effortlessly transforming it into an X. The crowd erupted into applause and shouts of "Bravo!" Perhaps it was meant as humour—but who's to say this imagery won't one day be presented as evidence of some invisible processes justifying the abolition of even the terms "man" and "woman"?
At this rate, we might all find ourselves categorised not by our sex or biology but as "Fresh Body," "Not-So-Fresh Body," "Little Body," and "Freshly Departed Body." In this hypothetical future, physiological and biological realities will be dismissed entirely—an inconvenient relic of the past. Hypothetically, such a reality might arise under the rule of a totalitarian global consensus, where scientists, fearing the loss of funding or social standing, feel compelled to legitimise these ideas for the masses.
In such a scenario, how many of us would dare to say, "No, I see the difference between these categories of bodies"? Far more likely, we'd rush to denounce the prejudices and discriminations of earlier generations. Perhaps some of us would even compete for positions as scientific popularisers, eagerly promoting the dominant ideology—or, more plainly, the new orthodoxy of the time.
Values are a social construct, shaped by the desires of the majority—or at least presented as such. Even science, often held up as the pinnacle of objectivity, is not immune to these social dynamics. It exhibits a remarkable interpretational flexibility, operating within a relatively narrow scope determined by prevailing societal principles.
While it's unlikely we will ever fully uncover the extent of this phenomenon, it is widely understood that if creationists were to gain control over the establishment of ethical norms and the verification of scientific data, bias and deliberate misinformation would inevitably ensue. After all, we instinctively understand that humans are inherently biased creatures, unconsciously driven to elevate their worldview above others. The evolutionary roots of this pathological inclination toward bias—a defining feature of our species—will be explored in detail in a later chapter.
Summarising Evolutionary Differences
Many wonder why evolution shaped us the way it did. Why do boys struggle to focus in school? Why do girls often lose in pillow fights (perhaps because they were simply never meant to win)? How did we end up with such striking differences? The answer likely lies in the distinct roles men and women historically played in survival and reproduction.
A woman's primary task revolved around raising offspring: sharing food, ensuring the child actually ate it, and intuiting the child's desires by recognising emotional cues. This required high sensitivity and emotional acuity, aligning external signals with internal instincts. To ensure survival, women needed to transfer large amounts of information about dangers and strategies for survival. It is even plausible that early language was tactile, perhaps explaining why women tend to have thinner skin and other features conducive to touch.
The demand for precise and effective information transfer likely pushed women to refine language, incorporating more complex sounds and visual elements. One can imagine early women initiating conversations about daily life, perhaps asking their male counterparts, "How was work?" When the tired man responded with gestures and incoherent grunts, she might have handed him a stick and said, "Draw." While this act was likely intended to pass information to their child, her finely tuned limbic system meant her interest was genuine, creating a rich culture of communication. Over time, this contributed to women excelling in reading, writing, and interpersonal dialogue.
At the same time, men inherited their frontal lobes as a bonus from women's evolutionary drive to ensure the survival of their offspring. In men, this function became something of a vestigial feature—reflecting the same caregiving instincts, but directed toward a broader scope, from their wife and child to the wider collective. It also took on the critical role of adapting the environment to meet the conditions necessary for survival. This required accounting for and calculating numerous factors. From this need for event calculation, mathematics was born, and from long-term observation of processes to deduce their functions and practical applications, physics emerged—ultimately leading to innovations and inventions.
All this new information was primarily passed down to children by women, as men engaged in child-rearing far less frequently, to put it mildly. Due to the success of this vestigial area (a feature originating from the female brain that found a new function in the male brain), its traits became ingrained as a unique sexual characteristic, passed down through generations. This evolutionary addition enriched each sex with new qualities while preserving the critical predispositions of both genders necessary for the effective survival of the species.
If the Roots of Differences Are Not So Ancient
If we consider a theistic explanation for the emergence of differences between the sexes, it could be attributed to God's foresight of humanity's eventual deviation from the natural order of life. This deviation plunged humanity into entropy in all forms and spheres, including self-destruction and the destruction of others. One of the factors designed not only to restrain mutual annihilation but also to correct consciousness was the polarity of the sexes. This interdependence would foster a shared perspective in human consciousness toward others and, by extension, toward all of creation. (The stronger this sense of reciprocity, the greater the likelihood of mutual care.)
It's observable how adolescents, after experiencing profound feelings of love, often re-evaluate their attitudes toward many things and, in essence, transform into different people.
Modern ideology, however, seeks to adjust these chemical factors with a psychosomatic mindset, promoting the notion that, since these feelings are merely the result of chemical processes, they should not exert any significant cognitive influence on you beyond fulfilling a basic need. Such messaging undoubtedly tempers the original pedagogical effect of these chemical processes, but the result is inferior to the default cognitive mechanism—one free from informational determinism.
These differences could be seen as a hint at perfection in symbiosis, where the focus shifts from the self to the other—an orientation that fosters life and, in our case, progress and the advancement of civilisation.
Of course, no one disputes the uniqueness of the sexes, their preferences, and their abilities. What people object to is the notion of one sex being inherently superior to the other or the imposition of restrictions on who one can be or what one can do based solely on gender.
As finite mortals, we strive to overcome stereotypes and challenge the principles of efficiency wherever possible—not merely in theory but through genuine demonstrations of equality in practice. Even if our efforts fall short and lead to outcomes reminiscent of the Norwegian scenario (where, despite achieving social, legal, and informational equality, along with fostering a non-discriminatory mindset, gendered career tendencies remain distinct), we can take solace in having tried. In Norway, without the reverse coercion or psychological pressure seen in other countries, women often gravitate toward professions centred on interpersonal interaction, while men tend toward engineering, analytical, or physically demanding fields. Such results do not diminish the value of our efforts—they underscore our willingness to confront blind evolution and defy its patterns, even if doing so feels like thrusting a lance into the "windmills" of natural laws.
There are no questions for evolution—it simply is. But if these physiological differences are the work of God, and He not only created inequality as an artificial obstacle to train our will toward justice, but instead prescribed hierarchy as a normative principle to be accepted rather than challenged, then a troubling question arises: does God value justice less than we do, or does He lack it altogether?
Yet, it is evident that God upholds the principle of equality, envisioning an ultimate state where sexual differences cease to exist, reflecting the perfect equality inherent in His own nature. The only remaining distinction will be humanity's perpetual dependence on the source of life. True happiness will be found in aligning with the laws of this life, which ultimately embody the character of God.
According to the Bible, the Fall occurred because humanity rejected dependence, rebelling against the laws of happiness and striving for superiority by activating dormant abstract potential—an act that introduced entropy into life and resulted in suffering. At the root of all negativity lies the antinomic pursuit of dominance for its own sake—a concept fundamentally different from necessary and benevolent dominance. The latter serves a constructive purpose, where an individual willingly relinquishes authority when alternatives exist or when their leadership is no longer needed.
Since God is the source of life itself, creating anything truly independent of Him would logically lead to its transition into non-existence. Similarly, humans may relinquish dominance when it benefits the greater good but must retain it where its absence would cause objective harm or amplify entropy. In this way, humanity reflects the character of God, mirroring His balance between authority and self-restraint.
The hierarchical concept, then, can be understood as a form of pedagogy aimed at addressing the root of humanity's sin: the desire for dominance purely for the sake of feeling superior—or, in biblical terms, pride. Its purpose is to teach humanity to find joy in accepting goodness and embracing dependence on a loving relationship rather than striving for superiority, which inevitably leads to division and death.
Given that everything God created carries an illustrative and pedagogical purpose, it is reasonable to infer that, at the moment of human creation, God foresaw future events. He embedded within humanity the tools necessary to admonish and correct this rebellious inclination—specifically, the "blind thirst for dominance."
At first glance, it might seem that the ultimate remedy for dominance would be absolute equality, erasing all differences that could lead to pride or abuse of one's unique role. In such a hypothetical world, no one would endure the humbling experience of dependence and need known as childhood. Instead, individuals would be born fully mature and independent, stepping directly into adulthood as equals. Old age would vanish, replaced by an abrupt, painless death at 45. In this society, all distinctions—whether of age, race, sex, biological traits, or even acquired characteristics like disabilities or economic disparity—would cease to exist, removing any basis for unequal opportunities.
However, this vision collapses under the weight of its own contradictions. The persistence of hierarchical structures can be attributed to several key factors, as outlined below:
1. Free Will and the Consequence of Sin
Free will, with its inherent potential for arbitrariness—including the pursuit of "dominance for the sake of dominance"—requires conditions that allow it to persist. It cannot be extinguished by an ideal state of absolute equality without undermining its very essence. In this context, biological differentiation can be understood as a direct consequence of sin, serving as a necessary framework for the exercise of free will in an imperfect world.
Yet, does the Bible not state that God created humans with biological differences and the capacity for childbirth even before the Fall?
As previously noted, God anticipated every nuance, foreseeing all possible scenarios. It is reasonable to surmise that biological uniqueness, originally designed to highlight the interdependence of individuals, did not involve fundamental inequalities before the curse that subjected women to dependence on men. This curse should not be understood as the creation of suffering but rather as a pedagogical tool—a rehabilitative therapy akin to training damaged tissues in a paralysed body. Similarly, the curse upon the earth, which brought toil and decay, reflects the suspension of unchanging laws to accommodate rebellious will. While these conditions are undesirable, they are the best means of offering humanity the chance for transformation and eventual restoration to perfection rather than outright annihilation.
The Bible also reflects hierarchical roles within God Himself, mirroring the human hierarchy as an edifying illustration during the period of sin in the Universe—a topic explored further in the chapter on the Trinity. This temporary hierarchy serves as a lesson in interdependence and humility until the conditions for perfect equality can be fully realised:
"The LORD said to my Lord, «Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool." (Matt. 22:44.)
"For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death." (1 Cor. 15:25-26.)
Likewise, the Bible promises eventual equality for humanity:
"There is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28.)
Once humanity achieves complete harmony with the laws of life, the need for hierarchical structures as a pedagogical tool will disappear.
The only remaining distinction will be the direct presence of God in human existence, providing a more tangible and intimate form of communication:
"Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God." (Rev. 21:3.)
Free will, however, will remain intact, as its preservation is essential to the nature of love and the highest good. The right to choose an alternative will exist, though accompanied by an enduring memory of the consequences:
"His brightness was like the light; He had rays flashing from His hand, And there His power was hidden." (Hab. 3:4.)
Nevertheless, the Bible assures that the Fall will not happen again:
"Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life." (Rev. 21:27.)
Humanity will have internalised the tragedy of sin and come to understand the cost of love, ensuring the permanence of harmony and unity.
2. Absolute Equality and Divine Reality
Absolute equality, as opposed to hierarchy, may not fully capture the essence of Divine reality, where the superiority of infinity over all dependent beings remains an intrinsic truth. The numerous factors upon which humans rely—air, water, the 118+ chemical elements, and the laws governing their interactions—serve as constant reminders of humanity's dependence on something greater. These dependencies are not just illustrations of our limitations but also a means of grounding us in the reality of interdependence. Even in eternity, there would remain a substance personifying our existence in God, sustained and created by God Himself.
3. Hierarchy as Illustration and Mechanism
Hierarchy can serve not only as a training ground for dependence on something infinitely greater but also, in the context of a distorted reality, as a mechanism of distinction for the will's inclinations. It allows individuals to pursue their subjective happiness through differing attitudes toward their circumstances and objective reality. For instance, personal dominance can be perceived either as a source of pleasure and privilege or as a means of care and responsibility.
A refusal to accept objective reality may also manifest in willingly submitting to another's dominance despite possessing one's own advantages and abilities. This might arise from a desire to avoid personal responsibility, physical or intellectual challenges, or as a concession to ideological conformity—shifting responsibility for the sake of statistical or demonstrative balance in favour of one's worldview, regardless of the cost, inefficiency, or the cumulative increase in humanity's suffering.
Conversely, agreement with objective reality involves recognising oneself or another in a dominant role to maximise efficiency and minimise harm. Yet, even if such a system is just and effective, one might still ask: why did the burden of weaker physical parameters fall upon women?
According to the Bible, this was a matter of circumstance. God had to assign the pedagogical burden to someone, and the coin toss of circumstance fell upon women as part of this illustrative system. However, in reality, no one truly escapes this dynamic—all humans inevitably pass through the stage of childhood, a period that reinforces dependence on others and instils humility.
It would also be incorrect to claim that men, upon reaching maturity, are uniquely fortunate to escape subordination. On the contrary, men encounter hierarchical structures within society, where a handful of individuals—rulers, presidents, and other leaders—may appear to stand alone, free from the correcting factor of "submission and accountability." Yet this is far from the truth. Leadership, when properly understood, vividly illustrates the reverse process: those in power, occupying the humble position of a servant, bear responsibility for the care and well-being of those who have entrusted themselves to their authority.
Those who possess greater opportunities and advantages have a moral obligation to use them for the benefit of those with fewer resources or less control, whether due to physical, biological, or circumstantial limitations. This principle resonates with our instinct to protect and sympathise with women, the elderly, children, and individuals with disabilities during times of conflict or crisis.
Society can be viewed through the lens of a family, where a principle of circular accountability governs relationships. Children obey their parents, but this is contingent upon parents acting in their children's best interests and being prepared to sacrifice their own lives, if necessary, for their protection. Similarly, a healthy marriage thrives when spouses prioritise the common good, pooling their resources—particularly intellectual ones—to achieve shared goals. Every member, whether in the microcosm of the family or the macrocosm of society, must actively participate to ensure collective well-being.
Yet, situations of deadlock are inevitable, where neither side's arguments clearly outweigh the other's. In such cases, a formal arbiter is necessary—whether a president in a state or a head of household—whose role is not to possess superior wisdom but to maintain functionality by tipping the balance and avoiding stagnation.
In a family, this might mean a wife deferring to her husband's decision to preserve his motivation for external challenges or a husband conceding to his wife's preferences unless doing so would cause greater harm to the family. In all other cases, the husband should prioritise his wife's emotional comfort and support her happiness. Similarly, a state must consider individual needs unless those needs pose a threat to societal stability. Balancing individual desires with collective harmony is the cornerstone of a healthy society.
When a spouse unilaterally makes decisions, or when a leader ignores the voice of their parliament or people, the result devolves into tyranny. Such individuals misunderstand the essence of their roles, mistaking leadership for dominance rather than stewardship. On the other extreme lies the utopian notion that society—whether a family or a nation—can function without leaders or hierarchies. However, historical and social analyses confirm that such models are inevitably destined for collapse, regardless of scale.
It is worth noting that, according to the Bible, God did not originally plan for kings or presidents to wield such extensive control. Instead, He required respect for elders, establishing something akin to a council of elders, periodically reinforced by prophets and judges to correct the course when necessary. These structures operated alongside the priesthood, which fulfilled distinct societal and spiritual roles.
But what happens when hierarchy and decision-making fail within the smaller social unit of marriage? Suppose you live in a society where spouses are chosen for you, and over a mere handshake, you find yourself married to someone whose character or intellect falls far below your expectations. Or, perhaps worse, you live in a country where marriages are often rushed due to physiological impulses or pregnancy, only to discover that your partner's silence and constant smile were not signs of wisdom but indicators of something far less promising. Is the principle of hierarchy still relevant in such a scenario?
The Bible offers an illuminating example: "Now the name of the man was Nabal, and the name of his wife Abigail. The woman was clever and beautiful, but the man was surly and mean…" (1 Sam. 25:3.). Reading this story, it becomes evident that the Bible celebrates Abigail's wisdom in managing Nabal's household and repeatedly saving him from calamity. Their marriage ended when Nabal suffered a heart attack, freeing Abigail to form a more harmonious union with David. Remarkably, Abigail used her intelligence to counsel David, whose decisions consistently aligned with her advice.
The story, despite its tragic nature, demonstrates that even in an uneven marriage, a wise spouse can guide their partner toward better decisions and manage the household by encouraging them to make the right choices—or, at times, making them in their place—without resorting to "impeachment." If the goal is to preserve the family, this approach is far more prudent than extinguishing the last vestiges of a partner's ability to contribute to the household. That said, it is far better to avoid entering such a union or partnership altogether under the circumstances described earlier. Instead, one might be better served by trusting the natural instinct observable in the behaviour of many women, who are often drawn to confident leaders focused not on the opposite sex but on achieving their own goals. Such individuals demonstrate their care through meaningful actions rather than empty words, which helps explain the particular delight women often feel when receiving thoughtful gifts.
The Bible also offers clear guidance on rejecting tyrannical authority and supports leaving any union that violates God's principles. Consequently, God does not prescribe inequality but rather establishes a functional model designed to prevent greater harm in its absence.
But what about the Bible's prohibition of female leadership in the church? "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man…" (1 Tim. 2:12.).
In the broader context, it becomes clear that this is not a blanket prohibition against women teaching or actively participating in the church. Commands to appoint women as deacons and to instruct youth and the congregation affirm their vital role. Instead, this reflects a universal principle: someone must make the final decision when there is no clear consensus. The debate, then, is not about the validity of the model itself but why men are given symbolic authority in these situations. This aligns with the previously discussed system, which prioritises functionality over perceived fairness.
This system in the church offers a certain grace to women, sparing them from the heavy burden of making stressful, life-altering decisions. Even in cases where women pastors lead congregations (as a Pentecostal pastor I know observed), it is common practice to pair them with male elders. Over time, this practice emerged from an observed tendency: women were often found to gravitate toward the perspectives of confident men in the congregation—opinions that sometimes diverged from denominational norms.
Biological and psychological factors further underscore this distinction. Women generally find it more challenging to endure prolonged psychological strain. While they can rise to such challenges out of principle, it would be profoundly unfair to impose such burdens on them—no less unfair than encouraging women to take on physically demanding or rough jobs. The issue is not about standing at a pulpit—such tasks involve minimal psychological strain and are not prohibited by the Bible. Rather, it concerns bearing the weight of decisions with profound and far-reaching consequences, where even minor hormonal fluctuations could potentially influence critical judgments or fatal decisions.
Perhaps this explains why field generals—particularly those responsible for devising large-scale combat strategies and bearing direct responsibility for military outcomes—are virtually nonexistent throughout history. While women have served with distinction in various military roles, including leadership, their presence in such highly strategic and historically male-dominated positions amounts to no more than the role of Joan of Arc. While she inspired and led troops during the Hundred Years' War, her role was more symbolic and inspirational rather than one of strategic planning at the field general level. And even if someone were to venture to look for women to fill such a stressful position, they would find very few volunteers.
Of course, we could attempt to artificially rewire women's neuroplasticity, training brain regions to adopt qualities that erode natural differences and diminish the complementary attraction between the sexes. Alternatively, we could flood women with testosterone, encouraging them to prioritise work-related thoughts—even in their sleep—over children and social connections and celebrate the fleeting triumph of equality for exactly one generation. But would this truly be progress or merely a temporary, costly illusion of fairness?
Conclusion:
1. Attempts to eliminate all recognition of gender differences risk undermining both family dynamics and broader social interaction:
• Healthcare and medicine: Ignoring biological and physiological distinctions could result in misdiagnoses and inappropriate treatments. Men and women often respond differently to medications, therapies, and preventive measures, including those for sex-specific diseases.
• Physical standards and safety: Unified physical requirements in sports, the military, or physically demanding industries could expose women to a higher risk of injury due to average differences in muscle mass, strength, and endurance. Similarly, workplace ergonomics must consider the physiological needs of both sexes to ensure safety and productivity.
• Sports competition: Equalising and enforcing a single physical standard across all sports categories risks disadvantaging female athletes, placing them in an unfair position despite their rigorous training and skill. Such an approach not only diminishes their accomplishments but threatens to erode the dignity and purpose of women's competition altogether. Similarly, allowing adult athletes with medical confirmation of mental health conditions equating their development to that of children could undermine the motivation and progress of youth sports.
• Mental health and stress management: Men and women experience stress and psychological challenges differently. Uniform approaches to workplace support or healthcare can overlook these distinctions, exacerbating mental health issues. Women, who often carry a higher psychological burden in professional settings, particularly benefit from tailored legislation addressing holidays, flexible schedules, and other supportive measures.
• Education and career outcomes: Gender differences in academic performance and career preferences should be acknowledged without artificial attempts to equalise representation across all professions. Forcing parity can lead to economic inefficiency, stifle individual excellence, and discourage people from pursuing their natural aptitudes.
• Legal and societal fairness: Uniform laws that disregard gender-specific differences may inadvertently cause injustice. For example, inheritance rights, family law, workplace protections, and policies addressing violence require nuanced approaches to ensure fairness for both sexes.
Efforts to impose uniformity in the name of equality must carefully balance fairness, individuality, and societal efficiency. Recognising and addressing these distinctions does not undermine equality—it ensures equality is meaningfully and responsibly upheld.
2. The evolutionary roots of gender differences likely stem from the principle of reproductive efficiency. Biological and behavioural traits have evolved to enhance attraction between the sexes, often through patterns that signal care for offspring and the ability to create stable, protective conditions for their upbringing. These traits are not arbitrary; they are integral to the survival and continuation of the species.
3. The purposes behind God's creation of differences could encompass multiple dimensions:
• A safeguard against societal fragmentation: Differences act as a stabilising mechanism, encouraging roles and interactions that foster cohesion.
• An illustration of ideal relationships: Gender distinctions may serve to stimulate and promote the harmony and complementarity originally intended in human interactions.
• A tool for moral correction: These differences help address the human tendency toward "dominance for dominance's sake," nurturing humility, care, and mutual accountability.
• An adaptation to life's dependent nature: Differences encourage humans to accept their reliance on a higher source of life, fostering interconnectedness and mutual reliance.
• A reflection of divine uniqueness: Gender distinctions serve as a tangible representation of God's distinctiveness and creative essence.
4. Our differences are not a cause for competition but an invitation to complementarity.
Like a symphony where each instrument contributes its unique sound, every individual plays a vital part. True harmony emerges only when these instruments play together in unison, creating a melody far greater than the sum of its parts.
Komentarji