Evolutionary Ethics 229female [Pinker, 2002, 346].Barash argues that “Males tend to achieve fitness by making themselves as at-
tractive as possible to females, then rely largely on the females to take it from there.
Often they compete with other males, either for direct access to mates or for access
to resources which help them acquire mates.” Men are hypothesized to have more
time available for mating effort and to rely on mating effort, including competi-
tion and display, rather than on paternal care as their major form of reproductive
investment. To be sure, one can always cite exceptions to generalizations such as
“women are more emotional than men are”. However, the existence of exceptions
is not a powerful objection against the claim that statistically-determinable differ-
ences between the sexes, when large, can both explain and justify the instantiation
of two basic norms. stronger objections are needed and are availab le.
Though Pinker acknowledges some role for discrimination, he is persuaded that
women’s socio-political deficits flow to a significant degree from their own pref-
erences, [ibid., 352–3]. Though he does not suggest, as E. O. Wilson did, that
tampering with the balance of power by fiat might be inadvisable, he appears to
agree with Wilson that equality of socio-economic outcomes for men and women is
not a reasonable social goal, as long as “People vary in traits relevant to employ-
ment... Given all the evidence for sex differences...the statistical distributions
for men and women in... strengths and tastes are unlikely to be identical. If one
now matches the distribution of traits for men and for women with the distribution
of the demands of the jobs in the economy, the chance that the proportion of men
and women in each profession will be identical, or that the mean salary of men
and women will be identical, is very close to zero”. Pinker quotes with approval
the view of L. S. Gottfredson: “If you keep using gender parity as your measure
of social justice, it means you will have to keep many men and women out of the
work they like best and push them into work they don’t like” [ibid., 359].
The evolutionary argument for two norms can be stated as follows:
Evolutionary Argument for Two Norms: Because of their different spe-
cialisations in reproduction, men and women find different categories
of experience pleasurable and aversive. The realisation of a single norm
with regard to typical patterns of behaviour (employment, childrear-
ing, sexual behaviour) would be experienced as oppressive for at least
one sex and possibly for both. The gains to be achieved in terms of
overall human preference satisfaction from a uniform set of expecta-
tions are nonexistent or small. Hence the realization of two norms is
not only inevitable or overwhelmingly likely, but morally permitted or
indeed obligatory.
The fully developed two norms system thus incorporates a set of ideals, per-
missions, and obligations. Its chief features are that women are guarded with the
help of a system of workplace segregation and confinement in the home. Being of
a retiring, dependent, and child-oriented nature, they are presumed not to experi-
ence this as deprivation, and political activity, the exercise of executive authority,