Are Men Pigs?

Yesterday on NPR's "What Do You Know?" quiz show, I heard an interesting statistic. It relates to the often heard platitude that "all men are the same". Certainly the vast majority of men would refute that claim. I mean seriously... what do Osama Bin Laden, George W. Bush, Michael Jackson, and Jeff Koons have in common? Actually, you might be surprised. They are 99% genetically identical. Isn't that odd? Isn't that just a wee bit disturbing- to think that (if you are a man) you are that close to the average serial killer? Then again, we can flatter ourselves with our similarity to guys like Michael Jordan, Matthew Barney or Ron Jeremy.

We might also consider this generalized genetic likeness when it comes to identifying normative behaviors in the modern male. Men tend to be competitive and ambitious for status, wealth and power. They often think in terms of hierarchies and value reason over emotions. These are secondary or tertiary characteristics, so (of course) we are talking more about predisposition than anything as concrete as causal factors. Whatever our instinctual drives are that underlie these traits is more difficult to determine or define.

When talking about the evolutionary development and social roles of the male half of the human species, there are some common assumptions that seem widely accepted. The male physique is built for hunting and initiating sexual congress. While some may find these conclusions controversial or even disturbing, one need only look at the world of sports for supporting evidence. Every decade or so a woman athlete comes along that a few speculate might be able to compete at the top levels with men, but somehow it never happens. Comparing the world records in track events simplifies the picture. Men (on average) can jump higher, run faster, and throw things longer than women can. This is indisputable. And these are clearly skills that would be highly valued for hunting game.

Slightly more debatable, but still consistent with the expectations of the successful hunter, is the assertion that men attend to phenomena in a qualitatively different way than women. They tend to scan the physical characteristics of creatures they encounter, assessing them for viability in terms of prey. I would argue that these habits extend to the search for a sexual partner. Whether or not a particular male has found their "mate", he seems to have some instinctual drive that makes them continue to look at women with a (frequently) subconscious analysis of their sexual fitness. Certainly the subject comes up often enough when several men get together (unless they see each other as rivals). I think there is ample evidence to believe that men are overwhelmingly visually oriented when evaluating the opposite sex. For starters, simply initiate a cursory study of commercial pornography. Seldom does it cater to women's desires.

Try to communicate this argument when your significant other notices your head turn to track another woman. You might have been completely unaware that you were doing it, but there is no chance of convincing her that you weren't doing it intentionally. While women are quite agreeable to acknowledging other gender-specific innate behaviors, they don't want to hear the explanation about the "hunter role". They have no problem with asserting their natural role as life-nurturers, but tend to gloss right over the instinctive formulation of the male. I do understand why women are upset by what they view as a double standard. Men certainly get territorial when it comes to their partners considering other males as prospective mates.

But that's simply another manifestation of the instinctual drives of the male. Perhaps you should ask your girlfriend or wife why she continues to apply make-up and wear fashionable clothing when she goes out. Hasn't she already succeeded in finding her mate? At some level, women do accept and understand the reality of our situation. To whatever extent we are animals... we have difficulty overcoming our nature(s).

Gender Identity and Sexual Preference.

It should be obvious that talking about gender identity and sexual preference is one of the trickiest and most controversial conversations an American can have. So one might think that I would just steer clear of writing about these subjects on a public forum. But I consider it a priority not to shy away from commenting on difficult subjects. For better or for worse, I feel compelled to describe my thoughts about these things. Maybe next week I can talk about religion, and the day after I can examine race. That should be an effective way to alienate whatever small reader base I've been able to accumulate.

I want to make it absolutely clear that I support the rights of homosexuals. I believe that any interactions between two consenting adults that avoid hurting a third party should be left unregulated by the government. Likewise, absolutely no individual that adheres to consent should have to face governmental discrimination because of his/her sexual preference or gender identity. Furthermore, I have gay friends and I enjoy spending time with them. I don't judge their activities any more than I would my "heterosexual" friends. Nobody has ever made me feel threatened by their preference for homosexuality. And as a group I value their contributions much as I would any other identity-defined segment of society.

Having established my position, I'd like to continue by pointing out my belief that our society needlessly conflates gender identity and sexual preference. Just because someone identifies more with the opposite gender... that fact doesn't necessarily mean that they are "gay". Sexuality is much more nuanced than that. Having a gender identity that is incongruous with one's physical characteristics may lead to expectations of homosexual behavior, both on the part of the individual and others. Some may view this as an unfortunate reality, but it's one we have to contend with nonetheless. But when it comes right down to it, I don't believe there is any single factor that determines who we are attracted to or what sexual activities we engage in.

This is why I take exception to the assumption that homosexuality is genetically determined. I don't believe that there is a "gay" gene. If there were, it seems to me that this gene would not be selected for by evolution. The average number of offspring born with the gene would be less than those without it, and the difference would increase with each generation. Therefore there would be an ever decreasing proportion of homosexuals in society. Yet we have no reason to believe that this is the case. This argument seems (to me) like common sense. I do believe that there are clusters of genes that work together to create certain general dispositions, but sexual behavior is way too complex for me to accept the idea that it is preordained at birth. Furthermore, it's my understanding that the components of DNA information allow animals to exist along a spectrum within any specific dimension of identity. One may be born with a predisposition to grow taller than the average human being, but environmental factors will affect individual development. If you were born with the "potential" of being 6'5", but didn't have proper nutrition (or had your feet cut off)- then you would not reach that height. Whether this was a positive or negative outcome would depend on individual perspective. Regardless this example deals with a trait that is both extremely obvious and concretely measured. Applying the same logic to personality and identity characteristics should further reinforce my point.

I AM NOT saying that people choose their sexual preference or gender identity. That's just as simplistic as believing in "fate". The potential manifestations of a specific human genome are virtually limitless. For things as vague and nebulous as identity or sexual preference, I don't think one can predict the final outcome on the basis of DNA. There is definitely a blueprint for a future individual at every conception. But it's akin to an architect's rough sketch for a building- it doesn't accurately predict what the final product is going to be. One's environment is the ultimate determinant. The events and forces that act on people, especially at early stages of development, have crucial ramifications in every aspect of an individual life. How the individual responds to these changes adds another level of complexity to development. Ultimately there is no single explanation for what people become, so why do people seem to require one?

The "Joys" of Home Ownership.

Since I've gotten back into town, I've been struggling with a convention of machismo referred to as "home improvement". But you see, my sufferings have not been of a physical nature- but rather wholly psychological. For I admit to being a heretical American male. That's right... I admit it. I hate D.I.Y. home renovation projects.

Why did I resist taking the plunge into the housing market? Why did I come up with every weak argument to avoid being expelled from the womb-like embrace of "rental properties"? Because I don't want to stick my hand in the toilet tank. I don't want to sand floors. I don't want to install ceiling fans. But like the boy who feared being chased by bloody clowns in the woods behind the treehouse... there is no escape. That next rumbling you here could be an expiring refrigerator or an imbalanced washing machine. Or it could be the thumping of your heart, plagued with the anxiety that leaves you paralyzed with procrastination.

When I lived in Larryville, and the basement drain began to puke up a fetid mix of human waste and groundsoil, did I rush for a pick and shovel? No, I did not. When pigeons flew down an exposed flue and into the house, did I stride willingly into battle with a plastic garbage can and a broom? No... not willingly. When the roof began to link, did I crawl up on a ladder with a bucket of tar? Of course not. I did what came naturally to me. I called the landlord. Your landlord is a strange mix of father-figure, adversary, feudal baron and God- except that unlike these personages, you can sue your landlord if he is negligent. If he can't do it himself, or if he is a successful real estate-man, then he sends his armies instead to do the work.

If you buy your own house, then you elevate yourself (or so I am told). You are now the king of your castle. You have joined Bush's "ownership society". You've made a shrewd financial decision. Within ten or so years, you will even build a little equity. Why throw money down the drain? Home ownership is an investment (or so I am told). Well let me tell you... unless you enjoy playing the handyman in your spare time, you better put a lot of thought into this choice. Perhaps only in Pittsburgh could I have been in the position to justify buying property.

Because let me tell you... when I walk into Home Depot, I ain't no wide-eyed Charlie Bucket searching for the magically elusive Willy Wonka, with his shimmering streams of chocolate. Nope. I'm just another wayward lost soul, with visions of frustration, incomprehension, and self-inflicted grievous injury. Why did I sweat in order to get a stable 40+ hour /week professional job, if not to have the luxury of paying someone else to do the things I'm either incapable of, or that I find to be onerous tasks? If I can subsidize someone else's living by hiring them to do a better job than I could, then aren't I contributing to a balanced society? I ask you... am I truly less of a "man" if I am helping to enable others to attain their own self-realization?