Customer Reviews

The Natural Superiority of Women

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

Ironically, the seminal work in the feminist movement was written by a man. "The Natural Superiority of Women", by noted anthropologist Ashley Montagu, was first published in 1952. It was serialized in the pages of the Saturday Evening Post, leading to the formation of the National Organization of Women in 1966. Earlier this year, the author completely revised and updated the book to take recent studies into account. Remarkably, the structure of his argument remains largely intact--only the details have changed.

Montagu is well aware of the cultural dangers inherent in discussing this topic, and he goes about it with tongue in cheek. He acknowledges up front that men are as important and necessary to the human equation as are women. And he concedes that men possess the "bruited advantages of larger size and muscular power", which offers certain athletic benefits. While these benefits may have been useful in earlier times, they have been rendered largely superfluous in our highly mechanized industrial society. And the same hormones that produce this size and power also give rise to aggressive and violent behavior. Men constitute the vast majority of criminals, psychopaths, drug users, and suicide attempts; they also instigate and wage most wars.

But the central question of the book is: which sex is superior, from an anthropological perspective? Well that, of course, depends on what you mean by 'superior'. Montagu offers this definition: "Superiority in any trait, whether biological or social, is measured by the extent to which that trait confers survival benefits upon the person and the group." With this benchmark in place, he then goes about showing how women excel in a wide variety of domains: intelligence, physical and emotional health, sensory perception, sociability, and longevity, to name only a few.

Montagu gives ground on only one topic: creativity. He admits that throughout history, the vast majority of artists, musicians, writers, inventors and scientists have been men. However, he never assumes for a minute that this is due to an inherent genetic superiority. Instead, he shows that it is a consequence of men's traditional subjugation of women. Men have always kept women "in their place": cooking, cleaning, taking care of the household and the children. Although this is finally beginning to change, the glass ceiling is still in place: women are even now paid only 67 cents to each dollar a man gets for the same job. Given such disincentives, he finds the supposed lack of creativity unsurprising.

I propose another possible explanation: women's creativity is expressed differently. I have long suggested that fully 50% of the funds allocated toward any new research or development project be used to investigate possible negative consequences of that project. So many discoveries have turned out to have nasty undersides; we don't find out until years later about nuclear waste, holes in the ozone due to CFCs, genetic damage due to hormone disrupters, and a great variety of other technologically-induced horrors. Could it be that women somehow intuitively sensed that these were genies better left in the bottle? Perhaps they devoted their creative skills instead to more practical matters, such as storytelling and crafts. These fields, while undervalued in today's world, have much greater utility in a socially-oriented culture. The craftspeople and the storytellers are the ones who preserve the fabric of society, producing its artifacts and passing on its legends.

This theory is, of course, highly speculative and fanciful at best. If true, and if the world were less patriarchal, it would imply a vastly different lifestyle than the one we enjoy today. We would not have all the blessings of indoor air conditioning, nuclear power, and plastic milk jugs. We would be more like indigenous people, living close to the land. Or perhaps we could combine the best of both worlds. The point is only that the kind of creativity we value determines, to a large extent, the shape of the world we inhabit.

Reading this book makes me wonder what other consequences would result from true equity between the sexes. How would it change our lives, for better or worse? Certainly it would affect our reproductive rates. Nafis Sadik, the executive director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), recently gave a speech in which she lamented the slow pace of progress for women. She cited the Programme of Action, produced by the UN's International Conference on Population and Development. Its primary goals are to encourage universal availability of reproductive health, including family planning; to reduce infant, child and maternal mortality; and to provide universal access to education. While there have been small successes, much remains to be done. Dr. Sadik made it clear that our present overpopulation woes are a direct result of gender inequity. The sheer enormity of humans on the planet--a number that is about to hit six billion--is directly or indirectly responsible for virtually all of our environmental problems.

"The Natural Superiority of Women" is as relevant and as true today as it was half a century ago. It should be required reading for any person who claims allegiance to a gender. As the cover of the original paperback edition says, "A must for every woman--a challenge to every man."

Modern civilization has traveled far in knowledge and advanced technologies, yet from other perspectives -- in morals, in education, in equality, in peace -- we have a long long way to go. Last year in Kosovo the world saw how false ideas can generate destructive actions, how an ideology of hatred leads to genocide. More recently we have been shocked to hear that a pro-Nazi sympathizer has secured a foothold in the government of Austria; and a professional baseball player in Atlanta has unashamedly announced, in effect, that minorities are an inferior species. Always, after news like this, the commentators pop out of their holes like groundhogs, glare at the shadows, then tell us what we already know. Bigotry, intolerance, and racism are evil and horrible and base. Much rarer are the thinkers who write about the root of these events, and explain what we must do to understand the causes and conditions which poison our culture with prejudice and hate. The most influential of these foresighted thinkers was Ashley Montagu, who died on November 26, 1999 at the age of 94. One of the key forces behind the United Nations UNESCO statement on race, Montagu was the author of more than sixty books. His works and lectures, which explore a wide variety of subjects, focus primarily on these four topics: anthropology; the fallacies of racism and sexism; the nature of human nature as loving and cooperative instead of selfish and aggressive; and the renewal of culture through education. Montaugu's last book, The Natural Superiority Of Women (originally published in 1952) has been expanded and updated to fortify his highly-controversial theme: women are superior to men. The book argues that the female of the species is biologically, sexually, emotionally, and even intellectually superior to the male. Montagu explains that this thesis is supported by scientific evidence. Like Socrates, he challenges his readers to distinguish between facts and opinions. He reminds us that facts are either true of false, and he welcomes all evidence that questions any of his facts and the conclusions deduced from these. Since 1952 when Montagu first made his claims in an article for the "Saturday Review", the book has angered many feminists and been applauded by many others. A woman, Montagu claims, should not attempt to blindly imitate the type-A, money-crazed, commercial-driven lifestyle of the typical executive male. The most fulfilling life for the mother can be realized only if she spends the first years caring for the new baby, and only later joins (or rejoins) the workforce. Montagu's great goal is not to promote a society dominated by women, but a to bring about a world of equality where the beautiful characteristics of women rule: a world of cooperation, sensitivity, and human kindness. This 1999 fifth edition contains significant new material compared to the previous 1992 release, and includes Montagu's new preface, an insightful introduction by Susan Sperling which explains Montagu's ideas in the context of current feminist theory, and the text of the important 1967 United Nations resolution titled "Declaration of the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women." Admirers of Montaugu's previous books will find many of his important themes repeated here, especially his credo, as H.G. Wells explained, that "civilization is a race between education and catastrophe." For those of us who at times believe that catastrophe is winning, the noble ideas in this work will provide insight, courage and inspiration. The Natural Superiority Of Women will help every thinking man to better appreciate the true essence of women, and help every woman to gain the vision and confidence to fulfill herself, nurture her family, stand up for her rights, and make the world a better -- a more equal and a more loving -- place to live. Michael Pastore, Reviewer

As a woman (and an ardent feminist) interested in concepts of gender and sex, I was told to pick up a copy of this book. I found it to be very "interesting" on the whole and well-written, but hugely flawed (and also outdated). Ashley Montagu wrote the book back in 1952 and has been adding several editions to it, this being the 5th one. From it's content, I can see why it would be popular among some 'feminists', especially back in 1952 when the book was first written. The book does have a clear argument and I can almost understand where the author is coming from. Although I do not share her dislike of evolutionary psychology, Susan Sperling, in the Foreword, refreshingly explains that Montagu's heart was in the right place, even if his conclusions were horribly flawed. Indeed, she praises the book for inspiring early feminists and fighting scientific androcentrism, but she criticizes Montagu for his "gender essentialism" and his clear reverse sexism. However, I am less forgiving of this book's flaws or as impressed with its presentation as is Sperling. As I was writing this very review, I was quickly reminded of why I disliked this book so intensely.

Montagu's idea, in a nutshell, is that the natural advantages of men are no longer relevant to modern society, and that women's inherent advantages should be embraced if society is to move forward. We should, as a society, Montagu says, embrace longevity and love rather than superior musculature and strength. When we do this, society will be more nurturing and loving. The author defines "superiority" as biological/social "survival value" (which he equates with longevity) and then proceeds to list off some biological and social attributes of both sexes in order to show how women excel over men in this regard. His conclusion, as indicated in the title, is that women are naturally "superior" to men, based on this highly subjective definition of "superiority." Of course, it should be understood that following Montagu's strange logic that durability equals "superiority," one would have to necessarily conclude, for example, that elephants or sea turtles, and certainly water hydra, are "superior." It is easy, it seems, to argue for superiority of any group as long as one defines the criteria in such a manner that the conclusion of said superiority is practically forced. Contrary to what Montagu would have you believe, there is no such criteria in the biological and social sciences.

Clearly, Montagu's book is not exactly research popularization, but is really a polemic work that promotes his own agenda of how things "should be." Admittedly, it is a noble goal to criticize sexism against women, but I'm not so sure why it is therefore warranted and noble to engage in blatant sexism against men. In addition to his description of superiority itself being entirely subjective, the legitimacy of many of his "facts" and their interpretations are questionable. As mentioned previously, from an anthropological and scientific standpoint, the concept of "superiority" or "inferiority" between groups, especially between the sexes, is completely meaningless. To make such a statement requires judgements of value, which is a big "no-no" in any science worthy of the name. I don't have a problem with someone making such judgements, as long as they realize they are opinions and not facts. Montagu's problem is that he assumes the so-called "superiority" of women to be a "biological fact," when it is quite clearly a value judgement (one that is not shared by me or my colleagues who are in the scientific community). He is fine to have his opinions, but to insist that they are "facts" is highly disingenuous, anti-scientific, and extremely arrogant.

Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that all Montagu's opinions are "facts" (which they are not), it still at least fails to convince me of women's superiority. Darwin, for example, has a better argument for the superiority of males than Montagu does for women. Of course, I disagree with both extremes and Darwin had his own prejudices that colored his writings. It is clear that similar prejudices, only reversed, colored Montagu's outlook, and Susan Sperling discusses these briefly in the Foreword. Thus, Montagu is using carefully selected data in an attempt to prove a preconceived notion. He even admits in the book that he did not discover this idea, but he developed his views in childhood.

Just as an important side note, Montagu's consistency also leaves much to be desired. Montagu has taken the extreme "nurture" position in the nature-nurture debate, stating on numerous occasions that humans have no biological predispositions or instincts and are merely products of their cultures and environments. Nevertheless, in this book, he has also simultaneously concluded that the female sex has "naturally" superior biological predispositions and instincts!!! Confused? Since this view of human biology is inconsistent, it's hard to tell where he stands on anything. He uses similar illogic in the book and when he is faced with the scientific fact that men have larger brains than women, for example, he claims that brain size has no connection to intelligence and then immediately afterward tries to argue that females actually have heavier brains and that it makes them more intelligent (both of which are factually false)!! I mean, what logic! Robert Bierstedt summarized this book's debate style perfectly in his review as "Heads - women win; tails - men lose."

Montagu's claims are not only nonsensical on theoretical grounds, but are also empirically shaky. More recent work on sex differences indicates that both men and women have distinct societal and biological advantages and that the overlap between the two is so considerable that there are more differences between members of the same sex than there are between members of different sexes. One of the chief principles in evolutionary biology is that nature values both sexes equally and invests equally in them unless there is a tradeoff where it is better for one sex to have one trait than another. Almost every measure of intelligence shows men and women averaging the same scores. Also, the Y chromosome, for example (and contrary to Montagu) merely determines sex and its function was selected for (although the fact that males are XY and females XX is random). Some asinine reviewers here (and Montagu also mentions this) have suggested that males are "incomplete" because of the chromosomal difference (Y being smaller, women being XX), but such a notion is based on ignorance and pure nonsense. Males and females have all the same genetic information except that information on the Y chromosome, as men have all the genes on the X chromosome that women use, as well as those on the Y which women do not have. One could equally argue that women are "incomplete," lacking a Y chromosome -- that they are the "beta" version. But it's just random. In birds, for example, the female has the equivalent of a Y chromosome. Many animals also determine sex by temperature, rather than genetics. But in every case, males have all the same genes as females. The problem with mammalian Y chromosomes is that recombination cannot occur, meaning that males will be more susceptible to mutations in that region. This is a mixed blessing, as males will of course get more X-linked diseases but also significantly drive much evolutionary development. This chromosomal combination may also be responsible for significant male variance intellectually and in other traits, but this is still speculative. It's not a matter of better or worse. Also, there is a current general consensus within the scientific community that longevity differences between males and females, while of course slightly biological in nature, are significantly social and have a lot to do with risk-taking, lifestyle, and the fact that men still do many dangerous things.

In a nutshell, males and females are basically the same genetically, but are different in certain key areas because of our evolutionary past: males being stronger, larger, and physically superior in many ways, more tolerant of pain, more willingness to take risks, and having more intellectual variance to females being smaller and weaker, making high investment into offspring, having stronger immune systems as well as greater durability, and intellectually clustering around the mean. There have been tons and tons of book on this very subject by competent researchers with much more insight and accurate claims than those made by Montagu. Oh, and none of them ever get into discussions of "superior" and "inferior." Most researchers tend to see these differences between the sexes as complementary, not as those that can be pejoratively used to rank one sex above the other.

To summarize, the overall problem with this book is that it's completely illogical in it's message and is no more "true" or "false" than the old (and some new) ideas of male superiority. Gender and sex differences are a legitimate field of study and it's unfortunate that Ashley Montagu presents it as a contest. As anthropologist Ray L. Birdwhistell said in his excellent critique of Montagu's book, "A legitimate thesis which might well be studied in context in cross-cultural laboratories is reduced to another foray in the battle between the sexes."

If anyone is interested in academic reviews of this book by respected researchers in this very field, see sociologist Robert Bierstedt's, psychologist Leona Tyler's, and anthropologist Ray Birdwhistell's reviews, respectively, at:

Bierstedt, Robert. "Review: The Women Books." The Antioch Review. Vol. 14, No. 2, (Summer, 1954), pp. 224-235.

Tyler, Leona E. "Review of The natural superiority of women." Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 38(3), Jun 1954, 208-209.

Birdwhistell, Ray L. "Reviewed work(s): The Natural Superiority of Women by M. F. Ashley Montagu." American Anthropologist. New Series, Vol. 56, No. 2, Part 1 (Apr., 1954), pp. 326-327

First, the positive: the message that females aren't in general inferior to males, and in many specific ways are superior, is one that still needs to be encouraged in our culture. Despite the progress that has been made over centuries the myth of women as inherently inferior still exists.

What disapponts me about this book is that the author managed to fall into a trap that I think is common in cases where some subordinated group is finding a new power and status. The trap occurs when they start to reclaim their rightful status as equal and begin asserting their newfound power. They have two choices: assume a position of equality among all groups, or attempt to position themselves as superior. They fall into the trap when they decide that they are actually superior. This happened in the civil rights movement. The philosophy of the Nation of Islam is a good example. They asserted that Africans were actually the superior race, at one time had been the ruling class, and had been undercut by Caucasians, despite their inferiority.

The idea that one sex can be superior to the other is completely meaningless. At the most fundamental level neither would survive without the other. In general the idea that one group is superior to another is also meaningless. It is like saying a banana is superior to a brick. There is no single measure of goodness by which you can judge things. A banana is good food, a brick is good building material and they are not so good vice versa. There is no universal yardstick to compare one to the other. Even if we decide that we can count all the different dimensions on which one can be superior or inferior, and count how many dimensions on which women are superior and how many on which men are suprerior, we still have intractable problems: how to define the dimensions? Do they all have equal weight? (edit, added 5/15/09): And in the end, what is the usefulness of the grand comparison: is it going to lead us to keep bananas and get rid of bricks?

This may seem like a trival quibble, but I believe it is extremely important, for it reveals the root of prejudice and discrimination. Discrimination, sexism, and racism exist alongside the belief that certain genders or races are inferior to others. By positioning your group as not just not inferior, but as superior, you are readying yourself for the next step: justification of the suppression and exploitation of the "inferior" group.

While Montagu presents ideas that everyone should be exposed to, in the end he undermines his own message by claiming for women _exactly that thing he decried in men_: the exalting of oneself over another.

--------------------
Addendum (added 5/15/09):

Here is a direct quote from the first chapter of the book:

"I should not have written this book had I thought there was any danger that women would adopt superior airs and deal with men as men have dealt with women. Most women have better sense than that. The one thing of which we may be certain women will never do is to be overbearing toward men as men have for so long been toward women. The truly health minded person experiences not the slightest need to establish supremacy over anyone. It is only the individual of weak and insecure character who, like the bully, is impelled to such contemptible devices."
- Ashley Montagu, The Natural Superiority of Women, p63

This is the most troubling part of the quote: "The one thing of which we may be certain women will never do is to be overbearing toward men as men have for so long been toward women".

For all the facts and scientific evidence for his point of view that women have many natural advantages over men (which I'm not disputing, by the way), he defends his sexist statement with an opinion: "most women have better sense than that."

Here's another opinion: power corrupts, and if you place anyone in a position of power, they will tend to exploit that power to the disadvantage of others. There is a lot of evidence that supports this opinion.

I first read this book in college for a course on the biology and sociology of gender. It had a huge impact on me. Re-reading it nearly twenty years later, I'm even more impressed.

A distinguished anthropologist, Ashley Montagu was interested in examining (and, when necessary, debunking) cultural assumptions. The assumption that comes under scrutiny here is that women are "the weaker vessel", a notion used to justify all kinds of oppression against females. Was there any truth in this notion? Montagu lays out all the scientific and medical evidence in a careful, rigorous manner and comes to precisely the opposite conclusion: in almost every respect (with the exception of sheer muscle mass), women are at an advantage. Women live longer, are most resistant to disease, less prone to birth defects -- the list goes on and on (and on.) Biologically speaking, men are the weaker sex. By far.

When Montagu's study was first published in 1952(!), many people greeted it with disbelief and derision. Re-issued in several revised versions over the decades, with each successive edition it became clear that the evidence was mounting massively in Montagu's favor. He incorporated the new data on each round and 50 years later he has been completely vindicated. Women's innnate biological superiority is not just a settled question from a medical/scientific standpoint, but acknowledgement of this fact is now more socially acceptable than ever. A number of other good books (many, interestingly, written by men) have addressed the topic of male biological fragility (among them "The Redundant Male", "Adam's Curse: A Future without Men", and "Y: The Descent of Men"), but this is the first and best of the bunch.

Montagu does a great job of explaining the science here. Males are basically modified females. In the womb, we all start out as female and if you have two X chromosomes, then you continue to develop as a girl. However, those of us with X and Y chromosomes are in for a rougher ride. A genetic marker on the Y chromosome triggers the production of testosterone, which masculinizes the fetus, altering the originally female genitalia -- ovaries become testes, the clitoris enlarges to form a penis, laba fuse to become scrotum, etc. And not just the genitals, but the brain structure itself is altered in major ways. When you modify something, there is more possibility of something going wrong, which accounts in large part for the greater number of birth defects among boys. Even more importantly, the presence of only a single whole X and a puny Y chromosome renders men disproportionately vulnerable throughout the life cycle to all kinds of conditions and diseases. Women are better protected by their richer genetic endowment of two X chromosomes. Although "lifestyle" choices are a contributing factor, the difference is mostly nature -- the male is simply less durable, less resilient.

Montagu goes on to demonstrate convincingly that women are not just biologically stronger, but emotionally and intellectually superior -- more mature, compassionate, complex, and perceptive. A particular standout is his chapter on the sexual superiority of women, which will provoke awe and envy on the part of any man who reads it. By now, everybody knows that the clitoris is far more sensitive than the penis , but Montagu makes it clear that not only do women have a capacity for sexual enjoyment greater than that of any male (multiple orgasms, anyone?), but that their eroticism is deeper, fuller, more emotionally resonant.

All this is laid out with clarity, precision, and wit. In addition to being a brave and original thinker, Montagu is a wonderful writer. Few academics have ever produced anything this enjoyable.

For many women, this has been an empowering work as they deal with the misogyny that sadly still permeates our world. As a man, I found this book to be both deeply humbling and enlightening. On my first read, after the initial shock I accepted the book's conclusions rather easily, I'd even say happily, because it confirmed what I had already long suspected at some level. Incidentally, that is an important point for Montagu -- both genders are intuitively aware of the female's innate superiority.

In many men, this subconscious awareness breeds resentment, manifesting in misogyny and abusive behavior. And it's not just a problem of a few sad individuals. Huge portions of traditional belief systems are dedicated to denigrating femaleness. Consider the grotesque metaphor of the first chapters of Genesis, whereas a "biologically correct" telling would have Adam taken from Eve's rib . This sort of thing has gone on for millenia. But, as Montagu shows, misogyny has enormous costs for men as well as women. By living in constant fear and denial of the feminine, men diminish their own humanity and hurt themselves.

A better, healthier response (exemplified by Montagu himself) is for men to graciously accept the primacy of the female principle (which for me as a Goddess-centered pagan, exists on both a spiritual and biological level, though apparently Montagu was an atheist). Rather than engage in frantic, angry denial, the more mature path is to be mindful of your own vulnerabilities. Giving up the constant attempt to be dominant, "strong", and suppress a basic part of yourself is the true liberation. My doctor once discussed this book and she remarked that she wished all of her male patients would read it, then they might take better care of themselves. Certainly knowing that I'm biologically disadvantaged as a male has made me more mindful of the need to take care of myself physically, mentally, and emotionally. Montagu himself lived into his 90s and once remarked "the idea is to die young as late as possible".

But in a broader context than one individual's well-being, the welfare of the entire species (indeed, the planet), makes this book urgently necessary. In my view, a greater respect for the Feminine is key to a more sustainable, just, and peaceful future. Montagu addresses this idea in the closing chapters of his book and ends it on a cheerful, optimistic note.

This is one of the best and most important books of the past century. Read it, whether you're a woman or (especially) a man.

The author's arguments are easily refutable, while his so-called "data" yields itself much better to different and much more humanistic interpretations.

Montague makes a very good and logical case for his view that nature has graced the female with better survival skills than the male. He presents scientific data to support his findings and offers direction to a more harmonious world. He addresses the world of survival of the strongest rather than survival of the fittest. In valuing the "might" of the primitive brain over intellect and reason, we have programed ourselves to never ending conflict. Montague offers both humor and stern warnings concerning the future of our species. It is, of course, a great Feminist read; yet offers much food for thought and action by all who recognize that we are of the earth and a part of the interconnected web of all that is.

Although I am a male, and I would have preferred this book to be in the "fiction" section, I found this book to contain enough evidence to convince me that not only is male superiority a myth but that the equality of the sexes is too. There is too much evidence to show that women are not only superior to the male, but they are superior by a great margin. I agree with the review above that every girl should read this book which would be a great self-esteem builder but every boy should read it too in order to understand the need to show women the respect they deserve. It may not be as enjoyable for the male as it is for women, but it certainly sheds new light on an old myth. At least it is not titled "The Natural Inferiorty of the Male.

A long time friend and fellow alumni of mine alerted me to this book. We both majored in Women's Studies at Douglas College. Montagu makes sweeping generalizations, ridiculously pro-women sexist declarations, and is as prejudiced for women and against men as he accuses our patriarchal chauvinist society to be. What an embarrassment for the male species AND female species. This is the sort of soft male-feminist we had to contend with throughout our semesters at school. A truly strong and superior woman would not need the sort of pandering and gender brown-nosing Montagu offers in his book. People who are truly superior don't need some court jester to constantly remind them they are so. The very title of the book shows that only a group with a tremendous inferiority complex would need this kind of reinforcement.

I read that Montague Francis Ashley Montagu had problems teaching his views in a classroom setting. Thank heavens the students had enough sense to rebel. This is the very type of groveling man that has made women and man what they are today.

The mark of a truly superior woman is her strength and ability to submit to a man and remain meek and silent in his presence. That is true confidence. If you want to read a book about superior men, I recommend Aubrey Andelin's Man of Velvet and Steel. His wife wrote a book about superior women, it is Fascinating Womanhood by Helen B. Andelin.

I learned so much of the truth of women and men from reading this book in college. I can't believe it's gone out of print. Every teenage daughter (and maybe son) should be given a copy. - Nevin