The third aspect of neurobiology that helps us understand the differences between males and females concerns a portion of the brain known as the amygdala. It is a structure about the size of an almond that functions as a small but powerful "emotional computer." When a physical or emotional threat is perceived by the senses, the amygdala instantly orders the adrenal glands and other defensive organs to swing into action. This is accomplished by regulating the release of various hormones that maximize the chances for survival during times of imminent danger. There is also evidence that the amygdala never forgets a fearful moment, which is why traumatized people often find it so difficult to get over their hair-raising experiences.

What makes the amygdala of interest to us is its role in regulating aggression. It sits smack-dab in the middle of the hypothalamus at the base of the brain, which is the seat of the emotions. When the amygdala perceives a threat or challenge, it fires electrical impulses by way of neural connections into the hypothalamus that put it in a nasty mood. Add testosterone to that situation and you have the potential for a fiery response. Let me emphasize this final point: the amygdala can respond only to what is in its memory bank. It does not think or reason. It emits an "irrational" chemical and electrical response that may save your life in an emergency—but it can also precipitate violence and make matters much worse.

Well, here we go again. The amygdala is larger in males than in females, which helps explain why boys are more likely than girls to be volatile and to engage in what psychotherapist Michael Gurian called "morally-at-risk behavior."

To recap, we have considered three critical components of male neurophysiology: testosterone, serotonin, and the amygdala. Together, they determine what it means to be masculine and why boys are a "breed apart." Having considered what might be viewed as the downside of these features, I must hasten to say that boys and men have their share of neurological advantages, too. Because of the specialization of their brains, males are typically better than females at math, science, spatial relations, logic, and reasoning. This is why most architects, mathematicians, and physical scientists are men. It is also interesting that males are more responsive to stories than women. When they get together, they share experiences that convey emotional meaning for them, whereas women almost never do this. Women talk more openly about their feelings rather than playing the game called "Can you top this?" In short, the sexes are very, very different in ways that may never be fully understood.

How about it then? Is masculinity good or bad? right or wrong? Are boys biologically defective? At first blush, it would appear that girls have all the right stuff. On average, they make fewer mistakes, take fewer risks, are better students, are more thoughtful of others, and are less impulsive than boys. Was testosterone one of God's great mistakes? Would it be better if boys were more like girls and if men were more like women? Should men be feminized, emasculated, and "wimpified"? That is precisely what some feminists and other social liberals seem to think and want us to believe. As we have seen, some of them are trying to reprogram boys to make them less competitive, less aggressive, and more sensitive. Is that a good idea? Most certainly not. First, because it contradicts masculine nature and will never succeed, and second, because the sexes were carefully designed by the Creator to balance one another's weaknesses and meet one another's needs. Their differences didn't result from an evolutionary error, as it is commonly assumed today. Each sex has a unique purpose in the great scheme of things.

How incredibly creative it is of God to put a different form of dominance in each sex so that there is a balance between the two. When they come together in marriage to form what Scripture calls "one flesh," they complement and supplement one another. Wouldn't it be boring if men and women were identical, as the feminists have claimed? It just ain't so, and thank goodness it isn't.

Consider again the basic tendencies of maleness and femaleness. Because it is the privilege and blessing of women to bear children, they are inclined toward predictability, stability, security, caution, and steadiness. Most of them value friendships and family above accomplishments or opportunities. That is why they often dislike change and resist moving from one city to another. The female temperament lends itself to nurturance, caring, sensitivity, tenderness, and compassion. Those are the precise characteristics needed by their children during their developmental years. Without the softness of femininity, the world would be a more cold, legalistic, and militaristic place.

Men, on the other hand, have been designed for a different role. They value change, opportunity, risk, speculation, and adventure. They are designed to provide for their families physically and to protect them from harm and danger. The apostle Paul said, "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (1Timothy 5:8). This is a divine assignment. Men are also ordained in Scripture for leadership in their homes, to be expressed within the framework of servanthood. Men are often (but not always) less emotional in a crisis and more confident when challenged. A world without men would be more static and uninteresting. When my father died, Mom said with a tear in her eye, "He brought so much excitement into my life." That characteristic is often attractive to women.

When these sex-linked temperaments operate as intended in a family, they balance and strengthen one another's shortcomings. For example, a man will sometimes get excited about an entrepreneurial venture or idea that presents itself. He may throw all the family's resources impulsively into a single roll of the dice. His wife, on the other hand, sees the risks. She is more skeptical and cautious. Her reluctance is based on a certain ability to perceive danger or negative outcomes. She is especially good at reading the character of people. A woman will say, "There's something about Clark (or Jack or Marty) that I don't like. I just don't trust him." She might not be able to explain why she feels that way, but her intuition is often right. And any man who doesn't at least consider the perspective of his wife is depriving himself of valuable information.

On the other hand, if a woman has to endorse an idea before it flies, her husband may miss genuine opportunities that are there for the taking. There are times when his spirit of adventure should trump her skepticism. In short, neither the woman nor the man has a corner on truth. Their individual temperaments are designed to moderate each other, not only in business pursuits, but also in almost every aspect of life. I talked to a married couple recently who understood these contrasting inclinations very well. They said that he was the "pedal" and she was the "brake." Both are vital to the safe operation of an automobile. If they only have a throttle, they are certain to crash. If they only have the ability to stop, they will never move.

My mother and father were like "yin and yang." They disagreed, respectfully, on nearly everything—from how to pack the car for a trip to which hotel to select. Fortunately, they used their differing perspectives to advantage. As Dad said, "Any proposal that gets past both of us must be pretty good."

That brings us back to our understanding of boys. Remember that they are men-in-training. Their aggressive nature is designed for a purpose. It prepares them for the "provision and protection" roles to come. That assertiveness also builds culture when properly channeled. I urge you as parents not to resent or try to eliminate the aggressive and excitable nature that can be so irritating. That temperament is part of a divine plan. Celebrate it. Enjoy it. Thank God for it. But also understand that it needs to be shaped, molded, and "civilized." That's where we're headed in the chapters to come.

By Dr. James Dobson