The Althouse rule

The Althouse rule comes from Ann Althouse: "If you do scientific research into the differences between men and women, you must portray whatever you find to be true of women as superior." (I should note that Althouse is calling our attention that this rule applies de facto in our culture and not that she thinks it is a good thing.)

There is an interesting example of it in Newsweek. The piece in question talks about the reasons women have sex and here is a telling line:

The mystery of why women have sex, and what they want out of it, has long been an elusive study—something even Sigmund Freud called "the great question." Researchers have historically theorized that women's motives lie in love and commitment, while newer studies have shown they do it for pleasure, just like men. But women are complicated creatures: their sexual health is determined as much by their emotions as by their physical state, which might help explain why as many as 50 percent of women have trouble getting aroused.

Note that: right from the get-go, it's a mystery. And then notice the odd next move that this mystery can apparently have only two possible (apparently exclusive) explanations:

1. women have sex for reasons of love and commitment, or
2. women have sex for pleasure.

Nothing else is allowed. That doesn't sound very mysterious to me so why treat it as such? And this is where the Althouse rule comes in for, "women are complicated creatures". Got that you men?!

Because we. of course, are so simple and transparent by comparison. Why the only reason we have sex is for pleasure. And probably selfish pleasure at that.

And then there is this shocker:

... their [women's] sexual health is determined as much by their emotions as by their physical state ...

Because my sexual health as a man is not determined by emotions as well as by my physical state? Apparently we men don't really care who we stick it into so long as we can stick it into someone. All those men who form monogamous relationships with women apparently do so for reasons that have nothing to do with emotion.

Of course, the real reason for all this "complexity" is protect women from moral criticism:

Many of those complexities, say the authors, can be explained by human evolution: stealing a friend's lover (something 53 percent have done) can be viewed as an effort to win a partner with the most desirable genes ....

As you can see, "complexities" is a nice way to say "backstabbing betrayers". And hey, 53 percent of women have stolen a partner from a friend! That's a rather staggering amount don't you think? How do the good folks at Newsweek respond? Why it's easy, they blame society:

... the myriad of female motivations could come from the flood of mixed messages we hear about how women are supposed to behave: enjoy sex but don't enjoy it too much, withhold it but don't be a prude, save it, flaunt it, be sexy but not a slut. No wonder things get complicated.

Those poor women, having to deal with mixed messages about sex. Of course, no man could possibly understand, us guys having never had to deal with mixed messages about sex.

And it has to be the mixed messages that society sends women that are the problem. It couldn't possibly be that we continue to send women the message that they are morally superior creatures with complex needs, rather than treating them like moral adults who need to figure out their own desires? And not "needs" but "desires". A need is a given and something you can't be held to account for.