CSS3 Drop Down Menu

18 April 2012

What should a woman do with her intelligence?

I received a book in the mail a while back called "Monkeys On Our Backs". The author at one point questioned the common idea that women should use their intelligence and potential to benefit society.

All men and women are born with intelligence. But they are so different from each other that intelligence benefits them differently.

What the science shows is that a man needs to use his intelligence in order to reproduce (have children). A man who does not have intelligence to gain status, wealth, and power will have trouble finding a wife. In evolutionary terms, a man who is intelligent and who uses it will enjoy higher fertility. A man who is not intelligence will have more trouble finding a wife and having children.

On the other hand, it is exactly the opposite for women. Women who "use" their intelligence to its "full potential" must necessarily have lower fertility. This is not idle opinion - it is a scientific fact, backed by empirical observations. A woman has a limited time, part of which she can allocate to career, and the other part to family. She cannot give 100% to each. A woman who divides her time between family and career will have less fertility than a woman who gives 100% to family. It is only possible for a career woman to match the fertility of a housewife if:
  1. there are perverse incentives that artificially boost the fertility of career women (tax breaks, socialized day care, socialized fertility treatments)
  2. there are perverse disincentives that artificially lower the fertility of housewives (tax codes that penalize families, higher taxes to support career women's choices, etc)
Note that I'm not saying that women should not be intelligent. Rather, I'm saying that women are better off not "using it to its full potential" in the modern sense ie. pursue a career. From an evolutionary standpoint, women can effectively use their intelligence to further their reproductive success in only one way: by passing it on (via genes) to their children.
  1. Their sons will benefit, because they will be able to attract a quality wife and have children. The more intelligent he is, the higher status, wealth, and power he will likely enjoy, and the more likely that his wife will be able to be a housewife and enjoy higher fertility. It goes without saying that he will have intelligent sons (see #1) and daughters (see #2).
  2. Their daughters will also benefit, because they will themselves be more intelligent, but more importantly, they will be able to have more intelligent sons of their own (see #1)
Society may "lose" out by not utilizing all this female intelligence to its "full potential", but:
  1. If we don't know what we are losing out on, then why should it bother us? People living 2000 years ago couldn't concieve of space travel, but it didn't seem to bother them.
  2. Perhaps our modern society could have been achieved 2000 years ago. But so what? Are we really better off now than we used to be? And who would be around who could appreciate the fact that modern society had been achieved 2000 years earlier than scheduled? Instead there would only be people complaining that modern society hadn't been achieved 4000 years ago instead of 2000 years ago.
  3. Perhaps global warming might have happened 2000 years ago. And it could have been fixed 1900 years ago. But how is it different from global warming happening now and being fixed in 2100 AD?
  4. Is it better for a woman to use her intelligence to benefit society, or is it better for her to have 2 sons who will inherit her high intelligence and benefit society?

No comments:

Post a Comment