here is very real sense in which those who argue for eliminating all differences between the sexes need to answer a very important question, namely: What reason is there to take heterosexuality seriously in the first place?  There is a rather thought-provoking article in the New York Times entitled “When Mom and Dad Share It All”.  This wife and husband, and mom and dad, do everything 50-50.  The two of them are absolutely determined not to allow any gender bias to get in the way.

Of course, a question that arises at the outset is: What counts as a gender bias?  Interestingly, the argument cannot be that we have a gender bias just in case the bias can be overcome with apt socialization.  This is because a disposition or a pre-disposition is not non-biological merely because it can be overcome by socialization.  For instance, it is known that a child can be born with a genetic pre-disposition towards violence or towards alcohol consumption.  Yet, these dispositions can be overcome through adequate self-discipline.  Arguably, certain fears that are rather natural to human beings have enormous survival value.  Still, these fears can be overcome through sheer dent of will. 

Now, are women and men exactly alike when it comes to their biological children?  From a purely evolutionary standpoint, it would be a phenomenal mistake if they were.  This follows from what is known as parental investment theory (developed by Robert L. Trivers).  In bringing a child into the world, a woman invests quite a bit more than a man.  Accordingly, there is a difference between women and men in terms of attachment to children.  The point here is that in terms of child attachment, we can get a difference between women and men that is not all about mere socialization, as some feminists would have it.

There is no question at all, however, that this difference between women and men can be socialized away. And perhaps it should.  On the one hand, it is certainly true that from the fact that something has a biological basis, what surely does not follow is that we should hold onto that something.  On the other, though, what is equally true is that from the fact that we can socialize a biologically based difference away it most certainly does not follow that we should. 

What intrigues me regarding many feminist arguments is that they seem to entail that we should socialize away all biological differences between women and men—at least when it comes to feelings and sentiments. 

And my question is a very simple one: Can we socialize away all biological differences between women and men while, at the same time, continuing to valorize heterosexuality?  That strikes me as extremely difficult to do.  After all, the differences between women and men are at the very basis of heterosexual attraction.  There is, for instance, that cute little way in which a woman can pout; and I have no desire to see a man behave in that way.  And I am rather sure that there is not a heterosexual man on the planet who would disagree with me.  Again, that coy look of sexual admiration on the part of a woman makes any man feel like a man in ways that words cannot describe.  Yet, again, there is not a heterosexual man in the world who is equally moved by such a look from another man.

Sexual arousal between heterosexuals is inextricably tied to women and men acting in different ways and having different sensibilities.  So I do not see how to socialize away these differences and, at the same time, valorize heterosexuality itself. 

What particularly astounds me is why feminism has not followed the idea of ethnic equality.  No one, nowadays, thinks that ethnic equality means that all ethnic groups must behave in exactly the same way.  Quite the contrary, the very idea seems to be that ethnic equality valorizes the differences between ethnicities rather seeks to eliminate them, precisely because the differences make for a much richer world. 

If there is anything we know, we know that ethnic differences can only be explained by way of acculturation.  There is nothing biological about any of it, although it is astounding how firm things become in such a short period of time.  Accent is an excellent example.  The point, though, is that in the case of ethnic differences we take acculturation and valorizes them mightily. 

By contrast, when it comes to difference between women and men, there is a rush to insist that any difference between the two has to be none other than socialization from which it is then supposed to follow that the only just thing to do is get rid of those differences.  But that cannot be quite right, given what we do with ethnic differences—differences which, by hypothesis, are known to have none other than socialization at their very source.

The article, “When Mom and Dad Share It All”, points to equality among homosexual couples as something of an ideal.  And in a different New York Times article, “Gay Unions Shed Light on Gender in Marriage”, the suggestion again is that the difference between women and men is none other than socialization.  This is a fascinating claim given that it is claimed by many that there is a gene for homosexuality.  So it is claimed that there is gene for a way of being that few claim to have any survival value.  This is embraced by all sorts of people.  Yet, the very idea of genetic differences that would differentiate between the way in which women and men behave is dismissed as so much nonsense. 

We accept—nay, relish—a multitude of differences.  Yet, we seem to be determined to banish the differences that are most central from an evolutionary perspective.  To what end are these efforts?  Alas, this is far from clear.  And therein lies the problem for me.  No one doubts for a moment that there has been sexism in the world.  What hardly follows from this truth is that all differences between women and men should be eliminated.  Nor, again, does it follow that we need to eliminate all difference between them in order to have genuine equality between women and men. 

It may very well be true that for some married people it is a good thing that everything is 50-50.  However, there is no reason on the face of this earth to suppose that such an arrangement should be held up as an ideal, any more than it shoudl be held up as an ideal that all ethnic groups should act in the same way.