Testosterone is responsible in humans, at least in part, for what might be called "social dominance." Gregg Johnson wrote, "Of two hundred and fifty cultures studied [by anthropologists], males dominate in almost all. Males are almost always the rule makers, hunters, builders, fashioners of weapons, workers in metal, wood, or stone. Women are primary care givers and most involved in child rearing. Their activities center on maintenance and care of home and family. They are more often involved in making pottery, baskets, clothes, and blankets. They gather wood, preserve and prepare food, obtain and carry firewood and water. They collect and grind grain. The data point to biological pre-determinants of gender-related behavior."
Is this biological "predetermination" still operative in sophisticated, modern nations today? The evidence indicates that it is. After thirty years of feminist influence and affirmative-action programs, there are currently only seven female chief executive officers among the Fortune 500 corporations in the United States. That's right, 493 are males. Of the one hundred U.S. senators, only eleven are women. There have been forty-three presidents of the United States, all of them males. The National Organization for Women has pointed to these discrepancies to "prove" that patriarchy and discrimination prevail in the culture. The more likely explanation, however, is biochemical and anatomical. Men, in whose bodies surge ten to twenty times as much testosterone as in women, are more likely to reach for wealth, power, fame, and status because they are urged in that direction from within. Women, on the other hand, elect to bear children, which takes them out of the competitive hunt for a while. There are exceptions, of course, but the obvious tendencies are difficult to deny.
Hormonal influences not only motivate the drive for power in humans, they also impact the way we relate to one another. When several men visit a skeet-shooting range, they tend to concentrate on blasting the next target. They tease and talk together, but winning is on their minds. Women, by contrast, tend to laugh and applaud each others' "hits" excitedly. They are more interested in relationships than in coming out on top. That difference is seen in countless settings. Consider the greatest rivalry in women's professional tennis during the 1980s, which on eighty occasions pitted Chris Evert against Martina Navratilova. Here's how Martina described their friendship at that time: "We always were very respectful of the other one's victories, and sadness. After a match, I would come over and console her, sometimes she came over and consoled me. Or she'd leave me a note, or I'd leave her a note. Just, you know, 'Sorry,' or whatever. 'I'm sure you'll get me next time.' We'd leave it in each other's bag in the locker room. Once in a while we'd send champagne to each other. It was all very civilized."
Compare that civility with how Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe related during their years in the sun. John wrote about his courtside tirades in his book Playing with Pure Passion:
Eventually I was so into [my displays of temper] that I really believed I was doing the right thing. And later it just was like a bad habit, like not being able to stop smoking. I think people related to me. I'm an honest guy, not some phony. When you're out on the court, and it's 100 degrees out there and some guy issending balls at you at 100 miles an hour, in the heat of the moment you do say different things than when you can sit back later. In my first big Wimbledon, when I got to the semis and played Jimmy [Connors], I was worried about just being in the same locker room and having him blow me off. If looks could kill, I'd have been lying on the floor. I realized there was a whole other game before you get on the court. Talking to the press was sometimes harder than playing the match. That time Jimmy intimidated me. But later, when I won my first big match, Irealized thateither the players were a whole lot worse than Ithought or Iwas a whole lot better.
Can you imagine John leaving a note in Jimmy's bag telling him, "I'm sorry you lost," or "I'm sure you'll get me next time"? No way, José. Competition for them was not just a tennis match. It was a clash of titans on a field of battle. Not all male athletes are as volatile as Connors and McEnroe, and some females can be pretty nasty on the court too. But the competitive drive in male athletes is more likely to be expressed in confrontational ways. I used to play basketball with a former All American who is one of the nicest guys I've ever known. He will literally give you the shirt off his back. But when he walked on the court, he became mean. He would humiliate you if he could—and usually, he could. I used to tease him about the "thin veneer of civilization" that disappeared when he was in the heat of the contest. There had to be huge quantities of testosterone and adrenaline surging through his masculine veins.
Now what about boys? If the "he hormone" can have this kind of influence on grown men, how does it affect the behavior of young males? In very much the same way. Most experts believe boys' tendency to take risks, to be more assertive, to fight and compete, to argue, to boast, and to excel at certain skills, such as problem solving, math, and science, is directly linked to the way the brain is hardwired and to the presence of testosterone. This may explain why boys have "ants in their pants" when they are in the classroom and why teachers call them little "wiggly worms." The problem is that boys are often taught at such a tempo that it becomes difficult for them to adjust. Testosterone also accounts for boys' early desire to be the strongest, bravest, toughest, rootin-shootin hombré on the range. It's just the way God made them.
Book: Bringing Up BoysBy Dr. James Dobson