90% of all violent crime in the United States is committed by men; males disclose less personal information about themselves than females; and between the ages of 15 and 24, men are three times as likely to die as women. But what is it that accounts for these and the many other differences between males and females? Is it something in the genes? A product of socialisation? Or perhaps a consequence of the difference between mother-son and mother-daughter relationships? Over the last year, three books have come out which attempt to explore these questions.
Gerda Siann's Gender, Sex and Sexuality gives a readable, no-nonsense account of the psychological sex-differences literature; and if you want to believe that there's no innate differences between men and women, you'll find everything to support your perspective here. But, personally, I felt the argument a little unconvincing. Siann starts off from the position that all gender differences are social and cultural; so when she concludes from the empirical evidence that all gender differences are social and cultural, it seems more a case of her finding out what she sets out to find than of critically evaluating the material. The evidence in support of a biological explanation of masculinity is strong: injections of testosterone make rats more aggressive; girls exposed to testosterone at birth become more 'masculine' in later life; and violent offenders in prisons seem to have higher testosterone levels than non-violent offenders. Each of these findings have been severely challenged and criticised, but Siann tends to skirt the studies and reject the biological argument out of hand, rather than tackling the biological perspective head-on.
Kilmartin's The Masculine Self also takes a predominantly socio-cultural perspective; but this book, which few people in Britain seem to have heard about, is probably one of the most comprehensive and thorough books on masculinity yet. Kilmartin examines a variety of theories of male development; and then goes on to look at several key areas of men's lives: sex, relationships, violence, emotions, work, health and mental health. The book is packed with facts and figures (for instance, American men are three times more likely to be the victims of homicide than American women), marred only by the fact that nearly all the statistics are USA-based. The book also includes a variety of 'boxes', ranging from the moving (a description of Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman in the chapter on work) to the slightly banal (a critique of American 'bachelor auctions'). At times, the book is irritatingly repetitive, and some of the comments smack of 'men's rights-ism'; but Kilmartin addresses political issues like race, age, and homophobia in a way that few other men's books have attempted. The Masculine Self is intended as a core text in the burgeoning area of men's studies, and it clearly qualifies as such. Anyone interested in an academic but readable coverage of men's issues would be hard-pressed to find a better buy.
Except, perhaps, Edley and Wetherall's Men in Perspective. This book is neither so polished nor as thorough as The Masculine Self; yet there is something wonderfully British about it. If The Masculine Self is the men's movement's Jurassic Park; then Men in Perspective is its Carry On Up the Khyber. Reading through its boxed quotations is like bumping in to familiar faces at a British men's conference Vic Seidler, Jeff Hearn, David Jackson whilst the orientation of the book seems to reflect a uniquely British interest in socialist and feminist analyses of masculinity. But, in contrast to some of the more convoluted socio-political discussions of masculinity that have emerged from British academia, Edley and Wetherall present a comprehensive and comprehensible exploration of social and political themes. All in all, it's an excellent book; warm, intelligent, interesting and lively, critical of masculinity without criticising men.
Reviews by Mick Cooper
Copyright © Achilles Heel Collective
