Customer Reviews

Eve's Seed: Biology, the Sexes, and the Course of History

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This is a refreshingly ambitious book that takes on a really big issue and does it by making grand survey of Western history.   The "it" is Robert McElvaine's attempt to apply the findings of contemporary research on human evolution and the physiological differences between men and women to the writing of history.   And his focus throughout is the social relationships between men and women with an emphasis on how (in his view) much of historical civilization has been built around men's fears and the need to contain certain antisocial characteristics that evolved as particularly "masculine."

He uses the "Eve's seed" metaphor to describe how the transition from hunter-gatherer cultures to agricultural ones affected the way men saw their roles in life.   In contrast to some of the "evolutionary psychologists" he criticizes, McElvaine uses admirable balance and restraint in integrating the finds of biology and paleontology with his historical narrative.

He shows similar restraint in evaluating archaeological finds of very ancient female figurines. He discusses their implications for his theory while refuting the popular theories of prehistoric matriarchal societies and universal goddess worship.

Any book about sex differences has some intrinsic appeal.   But this one explores aspects of the topic one is not likely to hear on "Oprah!" or the "Jerry Springer Show."  His analysis sheds light on questions of community in large urban groups, our attitude toward the environment and contemporary politics.

In the book's first half, he gives special emphasis to the evolution of religious ideas and how they both reflected and influenced the relations between men and women.   In the second half, he focuses more on European and American history in the last two centuries, dealing with material that will be more familiar to most readers.   One of the intriguing aspects of the book is that, even though it's highly critical of certain historically "male" attitudes and practices, the analysis focuses largely on men's perception of their roles and the institutions they built on that basis.

Along the way he offers surprising insights into the many ways the relations between the sexes influences the way we understand even seemingly objective information.   For instance, he finds that one of the results of the dissemination of Darwin's ideas was to de-feminize nature in people's minds and thus emphasize the idea that nature is a competitor to men, something to be conquered.

McElvaine's analysis in some places raises more questions than it answers.   For example, he describes the Roman Empire as a place where "male" tendencies to over-consumption, violence and cruelty were carried to great excess, and takes the dualistic Mithra religion as embodying those negative male attributes.   But in pointing out that a partial legal and social liberation of Roman women did not to curb those excesses, he doesn't answer the obvious question, why not? If male domination produced particular negative outcomes in Rome, why did an improved social role for women not counteract them? And how did a more "feminine" Christianity win out over Mithraism as the dominant religion?   (He does suggest some partial answers to the latter.)

One of the ironies of this book is that, in elaborating a more woman-friendly view of history, its view of women in the Bible could serve to undercut efforts of feminist theologians to reexamine traditional interpretations.   McElvaine's treatment of the story he makes the book's leading metaphor, Adam and Eve in the Garden, is probably justified in seeing the historical transition to agricultural societies as central to the cultural context of the story.  But in focusing on the historical view, the complex theological and ethical aspects of the story are perhaps inevitably shortchanged.

Yet some of the readings of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament here can also be questioned on historical grounds.  McElvaine seems to implicitly accept the predominant Western Christian reading of the Eden story, which derives largely from Saint Augustine, as an unequivocal story of the human Fall from innocence to Original Sin, with Eve as a sinful villain.   But assuming the original hearers of the story understood it this way is a very speculative exercise, and one that can overlook important implications of the story.

Fresh readings of the stories of Biblical women in recent decades - Eve, Miriam, Deborah, Dinah, Sarah and Hagar, Potiphar's wife, Bathsheba, Ruth, Jezebel -certainly raise questions about the extent to which we can assume that the dominant "male monotheistic" voice in the Bible reflects more general attitudes in the societies of that time.   As do recent findings on the worship of the female goddess Asherah in Israel, who wasn't so despised by ordinary Israelites as by the authors of the Bible.

A similar question arises about McElvaine's argument that Second Isaiah, who articulated a more exclusively monotheistic brand of Yahwism than seems to have been prevalent during most of Israel's earlier history, was notable for introducing more "feminine" attributes of God.

A great part of the value of "Eve's Seed" is that it does surface such issues throughout.   The last chapters apply the earlier observations about sex differences and social roles to discussions of "flappers" in the 1920s, verbal aggression in contemporary life, the youth culture of the 1950s and after, how perceptions of their own masculinity affected several American Presidents, and the feminist movement of recent decades.

This is a book meant to provoke thought and discussion.   Neither liberals nor conservatives will find it entirely congenial from the point of view of current ideologies. Because it raises some tough questions about deep-seated social problems for which there are no clear solutions.   Much less easy ones.

On Sunday, Novemeber 11, 2001, two months after the WTC and Pentagon disasters, the 'Washington Post' ran several articles concerning the future of Afghan women and all women living in Muslim dominated countries. One of these articles, entitled "The Birth of the Myth That Men Are Closer to God" by Robert S. McElvaine so intrigued me that I immediately ordered McElvaine's book EVE'S SEED from Amazon and read it.

I've been a feminist ever since my father told me I could not grow up and be a priest. I don't know why he said that, as I had never shown any interest in the vocation, but the mere fact that he told me I could not do something provoked me to ask why? I've been asking why ever since, and though I left organized religion behind in a cloud of dust years ago, I still question the nature of the universe and my place in it, so, "naturally" I was intrigued with McElvaine's book.

McElvaine is a historian, but he has included information from related social science fields as well as snippets of science. In fact, his book is a HUGE synopsis of LOTS of material that includes world literature and myths; literature from the American woman's movement; the Bible plus various interpretations of Jesus message; demography; anthropology; history; and psychology. At times he is overly reliant on fellow social scientists who have been somewhat discredited (Margaret Mead, Ashley Montague, Freud). However, McElvaine's summaries also include some recent material from more reputable sources.

Although the book jacket categorizes McElvaine's book as 'Science/History' I would describe it as 'Woman's Studies/History/Religion'. Imagine a book entitled EVE'S SEED that discusses the science of human reproduction and fails to include material from THE OVARY OF EVE by Clara Pinto-Correia, especially when Pinto-Correia's book would have supported so many of McElvaine's contentions!! McElvaine also might have included better material to support his thesis that the "two sexes" are composed of biological organisms who form a bimodal distribution along a continuum. He mentions the disparities in male-female medical research, but fails to mention the most egregious example--the failure until recently to include women in the Framingham Heart Studies. (This latter is not an esoteric example. He cites Faludi's book BACKLASH over and over, and if I am not mistaken Faludi raises this point in her book.)

At the beginning of 1960s resurgence in the women's movement, I was young and naive and actually thought, "Now the workplace will become a kinder, gentler place because women will bring their values to the office." Wrong!! Instead, the workplace has masculinzed many women. To "get ahead" one must become competitive, agressive, and a sycophant with an ability to laugh at things that aren't funny. As McElvaine points out, Sigourney Weaver's character in the film "Working Girl" (noxious female executive) is closer to the real thing than the sniveling little Melanie Griffin. The female executives I have known are TOUGH cookies!! (Think Margaret Thatcher. Think Madeline Albright!! Think Hillary Clinton!!)

McElvaine's subtitle should have been "Religion, the Sexes and the Course of History." Although he does not include any real science, McElvaine does a great job of tackling the way the Judeo-Christian-Isalamic religions have "kept woman in her place" even though it would seem this was NOT the Jesus message. In fact, Jesus is a hero in McElvaine's book (along with Gandi, Martin Luther King, and other 'gentlemen'). I never liked 'Saint' Paul, and now I know why. Seems those early male Christian writers interpreted Jesus to suit their needs. Cover your head indeed!! Old Law is Dead -- they never even heard the message!! It was women who first recognized Jesus as the Christ and women who first saw him after the resurrection!!

McElvaine does a fine job of articulating what he believes Jesus message really was (a feminine one about love) and how the church twisted it to suit its needs. McElvaine is not into Catholic bashing either. He points out that while Christianity was founded by a man of peace, Islam was founded by a man of war. He also says Calvin's Geneva was not a real great place for women and Martin Luther instructed his wife, a former nun, to stop singing the Ave Maria.

McElvaine's book falls into the category I call "Pop" social science, but it would be wonderful for use in American Studies, Women's Studies, Sociology, History, or Religious Studies classes because it is provocative reading that just might be correct--depending on how you interpret the "facts".

Eve's Seed is the best synthesis of these topics that I have read to date. The book falls in the category of 'revisionist' literature/history, but that terminology should be discarded because it only serves to reinforce the cultural bias so skillfully illustrated in McElvaine's book.

Another reviewer below, makes the point that the word 'biology' in the subtitle is misleading because McElvaine doesn't vigorously cite biological research in support of his arguments. Rather, the reviewer suggests that 'religion' would be a better substitute in the subtitle due to the thorough analysis religion receives. I respectfully disagree. Religion (at least the Christian incarnation of religion with which I am most familiar) is a historical phenomenon, and thus it has been documented via written records by its various practitioners since its inception. McElvaine is a historian by training and, as such, a thorough analysis of religion (via its historical writings) is warranted. As a biologist, I would have enjoyed more research and discussion regarding biological evolution, but the interpretations and analysis of human biology are sound.

With this in mind, lets return to the subtitle: Biology, the Sexes, and the Course of History. To replace biology with religion is a mistake that misses the thesis of the book; females and males are '...a little different (on average) and wholly equal.' McElvaine's arguments are built around this thesis. Analysis of religion represents a part of the arguments, but not the thesis. 'Hell hath no fury like a man devalued' is due to the misconception that the sexes are not equal (men are from Mars, women are from Venus - sound familiar?).

If you are a strong proponent of what is often termed 'traditional' values, and if you long for a return to some long-past utopia where those values played themselves out everyday, then Eve's Seed is for you! The strength and clarity of these arguments will cause you to struggle internally to rationalize the denial that you will continue to externalize. If you already think you are enlightened and open-minded then Eve's Seed is for you, too! The wit and logic presented are delightfully crisp and the conclusions will leave you asking yourself 'why hasn't my own thinking come this far yet?' Maybe some readers have made this intellectual journey, I possessed the pieces, but was still a few years from this level of understanding.

Eve's Seed is about challenges and syntheses - isn't that what life is about?

PS Hannah: 'The Ovary of Eve' is next on my reading list.

After reading many of the great reviews about Robert McElvaine's new book, Eve's Seed, I went right out and bought it. The book is extremely thought-provoking and truly does provide an almost never-before-heard-of interpretation about women and how perceptions and misperceptions about them have shaped all of history. I enjoyed the way that McElvaine explored so many different disciplines to come to the conclusions that he has. I suggest to everyone that I can to select this book for their book clubs -- there are endless topics to discuss! It is amazing to go back to events that took place 10,000 years ago and see how they have affected the way men and women are today. In one word: Enlightening!

After reading an editorial in the Washington Post written by this author concerning the Taliban's treatment of women, I had to read this book. This is truly an important and timely book that touches on everything that vexes our society today - women's rights, where men fit into the modern society, racism, and how religion has played an unfortunate part in keeping women down, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. It is a dense and challenging, but worthwhile read. And when you get your copy, pass it around. It should be shared. PS. Someone should tell Bill Maher about this one. It's right up his alley.

Being aware myself that men talk about their seed when it would be more accurate to talk about their pollen I was intrigued to come across such an extensive theory based on this very mistaken metaphor.

This book is a great read and certainly we need to understand human nature and include it in our understanding of our history and ourselves today. McElvaine makes a good first stab at this and I will not repeat his argument again but point out a few important errors.

The faults with the book concern the biology, both the factual errors and the lack of real exploration. The descriptions of the mating behavior of primates are not fully correct, especially regarding gorillas - the silverback has a very small penis and testicles and little interest in sex except when a female is ovulating which means at intervals of three to four years, hardly comparable to humans. McElvaine also says that animals rarely kill members of their own species but Dian Fossey stated that 25% of gorilla mortality was due to the male gorilla - he kills both other males and infants if he ousts a resident male.

The biggest error is that apes are, in fact, not matrilineal. In chimpanzees and bonobos the males remain for life in their natal group and the females leave at puberty. This is most likely the case for hominids and humans ie human females have hardly ever been matilineal and had the benefit of this base for kin or female-female bonding.

McElvaine makes a big case for human 'mounting' behavior which may be valid but amongst other primate species there is no universal evidence for it correlating directly with dominance and submission. Sometimes the dominant individual is mounted, sometimes females mount their female 'friends', sometimes a presentation is a way to give an olfactory signal by a dominant. Also, presentations that are submissive are very different from the upright, assertive, four-square stance of a female soliciting a copulation.

These errors do not greatly undermine any of the arguments but do show that when we are going to use biology in an argument we need to know more than just a little biology. The fact that human males have nearly always spent their whole life with kin when females have had to join a new group to breed is an enormously important factor in the repression of human females and the dominance of men and masculine values - including men fighting over possession of such females. Looking at primate behavior tends to show that the roots of some of our behavior were very deep and strong well before agriculture came along.

Also, even if we do think more about the male/female spectrum of human nature there may well be a number of males at the masculine end of the spectrum who are not striving to be anything other than they naturally are - ie are extreme males who simply have little or no capacity for feminine values. If these are the dangerous males then the best we can do is to stop allowing them and their virtual 100% masculinity to be the role models for the more average male - or even the average human.

McElvaine's points about the false metaphors we use, male-biased language and attitudes, misogyny, a male creator, the belittling of feminine values and behaviors and the impossible way men try to be 'notawoman' are certainly strong and in many ways obvious when pointed out. And it is surely foolish to think that such a lop-sided species can hope for anything other than toppling over in the mightiest of Falls.

McElvaine offers a few ideas about how we might be able to overcome our maladaptive proclivities but it is an enormous task both to recognize our human errors and for men to ever overcome their maladaptive inheritance and genuinely not feel so much contempt for the feminine in human nature. It is hard to imagine the necessary changes coming any time soon.

A highly recommended read and hopefully it will open up essential further explorations in this area.

This book has been especially useful for a university paper I was working on. It passed some time since that but the concepts I read are still fresh in my memory, since it were concepts I've been suspicious for a long time. One might think that the author forced a note in affirming the male dominance is caused by the male "impotence", but if you take an impartial look you'll find he is right. Don't get me wrong: I have no problems in beeing a man, but I'm honest enough to recognize that the western world is based on a patriarchal figure, on a concept of a man that needs constantly to prove to himself and to others that he is no woman, that he is not a sissy or a gay - wich is even worse -, but, on the contrary, that he is a real macho, a sex machine that can "score" as many women as he wants since they are so inferior that they get completely overwhelmed by his mere presence. It's sad but it's the reality.

Fortunately, things are changing. In Spain we had notice of the first girl (she's 16) that joined a senior male soccer team as an advancee. In Germany, Angela Merkel is the first woman to be nominated chancelor. In the great majority of western countries, the armed forces do accept equally male and female recruits.

It reminds me the movie of 007 "Goldeneye", when the Admiral said to M (a woman) that she didn't had the "balls" to stand in face of the situation, to wich she replied that she had the advantage of not having to be thinking with them all the time...

It would be nice if in the future our leaders will think less with the "balls" and more with the brains...

"Eve's Seed", by Robert McElvaine is a fascinating slant on the male-female "us vs. them" distortion. That distortion-- male always "on top" -- still haunts male-female relations even today.

McElvaine is a historian who frames the "male-dominated" culture of the past 8 to 10 thousand years by defining what he calls the "Conception Misconception". That is, the notion put forward for thousands of years (and still accepted as gospel by millions of people even today) that the male "seed" accounts for 100% of the "life" of a child and that the female is simply the "soil" in which the male seed is planted, then nurtured until birth.

From that premise, McElvaine shows how males felt it was their right--even their duty--to claim ownership of and assert dominance over females, over their children, and even nature itself.

It's worth reading if only to enjoy his definitions of what he calls "notawoman", also known as the identity associated today with "super macho".

Highly recommended reading for anyone interested in seeing a more cooperative, less competitive culture, especially as it pertains to the male-female "power balance". (Not recommended reading, therefore, for anyone who still thinks wives should "obey" their husbands.)

a retired professor from Memphis

A fascinating reinterpretation of human history.... Ever wonder how those courses you took in college -- everything from political science to western civilization, from religion to biology and even music -- could possibly be related? McElvaine incorporates topics from these disciplines and others into this captivating new book and shows how they are all shaped by sexual misunderstandings and metaphors. After reading this book you're likely to not look at the religion you grew up with, our current political system, or even men and women in the same light. If you like controversy -- this book will provide fodder for many evenings of enlightening discussion.

This work is profoundly transforming. If you are curious about the universe and our place in it, Eve's Seed will provide you with a serious of delectable epiphanies. Ever wonder about the origins of human values? Has it ever crossed your mind that for 99% of human existence we've lived in an environment drastically different from the one outside your window? Does this have any consequences for human interaction? Eve's Seed provides answers to these questions and so many more. Moreover, the author's wonderful prose and wordplay make the book a joy to read. 5 stars all around.