The “staying alive” theory (SAT) has the potential to reinforce stereotypes, not erase them, contrary to what the authors suggest. It preserves old-fashioned notions about women and ties them to their supposed subordination to raising children. If we take the perspective of a feminist philosophy that assumes that certain psychological and behavioral traits that we more often attribute to women have social rather than biological roots (Mikkola, Reference Mikkola, Garry, Khader and Stone2017), the SAT then becomes an example of essentialist thinking about women that we should move away from. After all, it may be that women exhibit certain behaviors more frequently solely because they have been forced to do so as a result of centuries of oppression and domination by men (women as victims of violence, rape, exploitation, abuse by men [the problem of power, oppression, and discrimination in feminist ethics, see Lindemann, Reference Lindemann2019]). Thus, an unjust social arrangement has generated the regularities described by SAT. The SAT excludes this possibility by equating the woman with the mother at the starting point.
Needless to say, this theory completely excludes not only the dynamics of homosexual couples – if we already want to remain in these exclusionary structures based on the category of relationship – but all persons other than men and women. The SAT reinforces the stereotypical role of women as caretaker mothers, emphasizing the importance of a woman's survival rate for raising offspring. This supposed biological regularity is the reason for the exploitation of millions of women around the world not only in the domestic and family circle, but also as caregivers in various areas of social life. Gender is reinforced and constituted through the repetition of gender-coded acts (Butler, Reference Butler1990).
Essentialism is also evident in the philosophy of biology adopted here, which seems to assume sex differences between men and women as fundamental, fixed differences that determine the described patterns of behavior different for both sexes (Weaver & Fehr, Reference Weaver, Fehr, Garry, Khader and Stone2017). The association of men with risky and aggressive behaviors and women with caring, aloof, and cautious behaviors may promote the reinforcement of stereotypes. An example of a stereotypical attitude is the very fact that the research and analysis are directed at inter-gender differences and the very identification of “woman” as a special, separate research category, as if it were implicitly assumed that the category “woman” is separate from the category “man” and as such, must lead to separate conclusions, because it is probably also governed by separate laws inherent only in this category. And what is the reason for the distinctiveness of these categories and the differences in the laws governing them? From differences in biology.
Although the authors cite the so-called “trauma hypothesis” as a potential alternative explanation, they reject it because, in their view, the veracity of this hypothesis should suggest the existence of stronger self-protective mechanisms in men than in women. Feminist ethics, however, points out that while men may indeed be at greater risk of death and injury from risky behavior or participation in conflict, it was men, not women, who for centuries created and developed the model of dominance and power that prevails to this day and which favors men over women. The starting point for drawing conclusions should therefore not be lethal threats, but the exploitation and subordination of women to men as the real source of self-defense mechanisms. These are incomparable types of risks.
The women's research methodology assumed by the SAT assumes a dominance relationship, or at least creates the illusion that women function within an environment that is the result of structures based on a dominance relationship (Weaver & Fehr, Reference Weaver, Fehr, Garry, Khader and Stone2017).
It is also worth noting another SAT conclusion that is as paradoxical as it is alarming. Women have greater chances of survival and longer life expectancy, but lower quality of life by more often experiencing fear and pain, as well as more often finding themselves in social roles that cause discomfort. This conclusion, while arguably correct from a biological, medical, and psychological perspective, surprisingly conflicts with a philosophical tradition that emphasizes the importance of well-being, the so-called life worth living. The SAT shows that women inherently have lives less worth living than men, a paradoxical adaptation as long as we value quality of life rather than existence itself. This seemingly more advantageous situation for men as measured by a higher degree of well-being can be compared to Parfit's (Reference Parfit1984) famous thought experiment about hypothetical future humans who live a life worth living for 40 years, then die as a result of radioactive waste stored by an earlier generation. But before they die, they do quite well.
It can be assumed that women's lower quality of life (living in constant stress and fear of men's aggression, threat of rape, exploitation, exclusion that makes it difficult to obtain satisfying social roles, hence more frequent depression and suicide attempts) results precisely from centuries of oppression and domination by men, and thus from a pathological social system. From this point of view, longer survival becomes a dubious advantage, further reinforcing the dominant position of men, who are freed from the possible “duty” of caring for offspring by longer-lived women who live longer precisely to care for offspring. This reinforces the feminist diagnosis of social relations in which men, even if they live shorter lives, simply enjoy life more than women who are constantly concerned about themselves and their offspring. The authors do not explain causation, but references to similar regularities in other species suggest that they recognize a biological, rather than environmental, determination of regularities such as greater concern for offspring in females than in males.
In sum, the SAT contains too many references to biological determinants, overemphasizes a woman's biological role as mother, and exposes a woman's greater responsibility and concern for her offspring. All of these are precisely the contexts in which women have traditionally been entangled and which are often used to justify the exploitation and subordination of women in their traditional roles as mothers and caregivers.
The “staying alive” theory (SAT) has the potential to reinforce stereotypes, not erase them, contrary to what the authors suggest. It preserves old-fashioned notions about women and ties them to their supposed subordination to raising children. If we take the perspective of a feminist philosophy that assumes that certain psychological and behavioral traits that we more often attribute to women have social rather than biological roots (Mikkola, Reference Mikkola, Garry, Khader and Stone2017), the SAT then becomes an example of essentialist thinking about women that we should move away from. After all, it may be that women exhibit certain behaviors more frequently solely because they have been forced to do so as a result of centuries of oppression and domination by men (women as victims of violence, rape, exploitation, abuse by men [the problem of power, oppression, and discrimination in feminist ethics, see Lindemann, Reference Lindemann2019]). Thus, an unjust social arrangement has generated the regularities described by SAT. The SAT excludes this possibility by equating the woman with the mother at the starting point.
Needless to say, this theory completely excludes not only the dynamics of homosexual couples – if we already want to remain in these exclusionary structures based on the category of relationship – but all persons other than men and women. The SAT reinforces the stereotypical role of women as caretaker mothers, emphasizing the importance of a woman's survival rate for raising offspring. This supposed biological regularity is the reason for the exploitation of millions of women around the world not only in the domestic and family circle, but also as caregivers in various areas of social life. Gender is reinforced and constituted through the repetition of gender-coded acts (Butler, Reference Butler1990).
Essentialism is also evident in the philosophy of biology adopted here, which seems to assume sex differences between men and women as fundamental, fixed differences that determine the described patterns of behavior different for both sexes (Weaver & Fehr, Reference Weaver, Fehr, Garry, Khader and Stone2017). The association of men with risky and aggressive behaviors and women with caring, aloof, and cautious behaviors may promote the reinforcement of stereotypes. An example of a stereotypical attitude is the very fact that the research and analysis are directed at inter-gender differences and the very identification of “woman” as a special, separate research category, as if it were implicitly assumed that the category “woman” is separate from the category “man” and as such, must lead to separate conclusions, because it is probably also governed by separate laws inherent only in this category. And what is the reason for the distinctiveness of these categories and the differences in the laws governing them? From differences in biology.
Although the authors cite the so-called “trauma hypothesis” as a potential alternative explanation, they reject it because, in their view, the veracity of this hypothesis should suggest the existence of stronger self-protective mechanisms in men than in women. Feminist ethics, however, points out that while men may indeed be at greater risk of death and injury from risky behavior or participation in conflict, it was men, not women, who for centuries created and developed the model of dominance and power that prevails to this day and which favors men over women. The starting point for drawing conclusions should therefore not be lethal threats, but the exploitation and subordination of women to men as the real source of self-defense mechanisms. These are incomparable types of risks.
The women's research methodology assumed by the SAT assumes a dominance relationship, or at least creates the illusion that women function within an environment that is the result of structures based on a dominance relationship (Weaver & Fehr, Reference Weaver, Fehr, Garry, Khader and Stone2017).
It is also worth noting another SAT conclusion that is as paradoxical as it is alarming. Women have greater chances of survival and longer life expectancy, but lower quality of life by more often experiencing fear and pain, as well as more often finding themselves in social roles that cause discomfort. This conclusion, while arguably correct from a biological, medical, and psychological perspective, surprisingly conflicts with a philosophical tradition that emphasizes the importance of well-being, the so-called life worth living. The SAT shows that women inherently have lives less worth living than men, a paradoxical adaptation as long as we value quality of life rather than existence itself. This seemingly more advantageous situation for men as measured by a higher degree of well-being can be compared to Parfit's (Reference Parfit1984) famous thought experiment about hypothetical future humans who live a life worth living for 40 years, then die as a result of radioactive waste stored by an earlier generation. But before they die, they do quite well.
It can be assumed that women's lower quality of life (living in constant stress and fear of men's aggression, threat of rape, exploitation, exclusion that makes it difficult to obtain satisfying social roles, hence more frequent depression and suicide attempts) results precisely from centuries of oppression and domination by men, and thus from a pathological social system. From this point of view, longer survival becomes a dubious advantage, further reinforcing the dominant position of men, who are freed from the possible “duty” of caring for offspring by longer-lived women who live longer precisely to care for offspring. This reinforces the feminist diagnosis of social relations in which men, even if they live shorter lives, simply enjoy life more than women who are constantly concerned about themselves and their offspring. The authors do not explain causation, but references to similar regularities in other species suggest that they recognize a biological, rather than environmental, determination of regularities such as greater concern for offspring in females than in males.
In sum, the SAT contains too many references to biological determinants, overemphasizes a woman's biological role as mother, and exposes a woman's greater responsibility and concern for her offspring. All of these are precisely the contexts in which women have traditionally been entangled and which are often used to justify the exploitation and subordination of women in their traditional roles as mothers and caregivers.
Financial support
The work on this text was written under the Bekker Fellowship (3rd edition) funded by the National Agency for Academic Exchange (Decision No. PPN/BEK/2020/1/00012/DEC/1) for a research stay at Yale University (USA) in the academic year 2021/2022.
Conflict of interest
None.