American Psychological Association, Invited Address, 2007
Media Transcript Full Version
Is There Anything Good About Men?
Roy F. Baumeister
Contact: R. Baumeister, Eppes Eminent Professor of Psychology & Head of Social Psychology Area, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306. Click here to visit Dr. Baumeister's lab's website.
Youíre probably thinking that a talk called ďIs there anything good about menĒ will be a short talk! Recent writings have not had much good to say about men. Titles like ďMen Are Not Cost EffectiveĒ speak for themselves. Maureen Dowdís book was called ďAre Men Necessary?Ē and althoughshe never gave an explicit answer, anyone reading the book knows her answer wasno. Brizendineís book ďThe Female BrainĒ introducesitself by saying, ďMen, get ready to experience brain envy.Ē Imagine a bookadvertising itself by saying that women will soon be envying the superior malebrain!
Nor are these isolated examples.
††††††††††† My purposein this talk is not to try to balance this out by praising men, though alongthe way I will have various positive things to say about both genders. Thequestion of whether thereís anything good about men is only my point ofdeparture. The tentative title of the book Iím writing is ďHow culture exploitsmen,Ē but even that for me is the lead-in to grand questions about how cultureshapes action. In that context, whatís good about men means what men are goodfor, from the perspective of the system.
††††††††††† Hence thisis not about the ďbattle of the sexes,Ē and in fact I think one unfortunatelegacy of feminism has been the idea that men and women are basically enemies.I shall suggest, instead, that most often men and women have been partners,supporting each other rather than exploiting or manipulating each other.
Nor is this about trying to arguethat men should be regarded as victims. I detest the whole idea of competing tobe victims. And Iím certainly not denying that culture has exploited women. Butrather than seeing culture as patriarchy, which is to say a conspiracy by mento exploit women, I think itís more accurate to understand culture (e.g., acountry, a religion) as an abstract system that competes against rival systemsó and that uses both men and women, often in different ways, to advance itscause.
††††††††††† Also Ithink itís best to avoid value judgments as much as possible. They have madediscussion of gender politics very difficult and sensitive, thereby warping theplay of ideas. I have no conclusions to present about whatís good or bad or howthe world should change. In fact my own theory is built around tradeoffs, so thatwhenever there is something good it is tied to something else that is bad, andthey balance out.
I donít want to be on anybodyísside. Gender warriors please go home.
††††††††††† When I sayI am researching how culture exploits men, the first reaction is usually
Seeing all this, the feministsthought, wow, men dominate everything, so society is set up to favor men. Itmust be great to be a man.
††††††††††† The mistakein that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, onefinds mostly men there too. Whoís in prison, all over the world, ascriminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has neverapproached 51% female. Whoís homeless? Again, mostly men.Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs? US Department of Laborstatistics report that 93% of the people killed on the job are men. Likewise,who gets killed in battle? Even in todayís American army, which has made muchof integrating the sexes and putting women into combat, the risks arenít equal.This year we passed the milestone of 3,000 deaths in Iraq, and of those, 2,938were men, 62 were women.
††††††††††† One canimagine an ancient battle in which the enemy was driven off and the city saved,and the returning soldiers are showered with gold coins. An early feministmight protest that hey, all those men are getting gold coins,half of those coins should go to women. In principle, I agree. But remember,while the men you see are getting gold coins, there are other men you donítsee, who are still bleeding to death on the battlefield from spear wounds.
††††††††††† Thatís animportant first clue to how culture uses men. Culture has plenty of tradeoffs,in which it needs people to do dangerous or risky things, and so it offers bigrewards to motivate people to take those risks. Most cultures have tended to use men for these high-risk, high-payoffslots much more than women. I shall propose there are important pragmaticreasons for this. The result is that some men reap big rewards while othershave their lives ruined or even cut short. Most cultures shield their womenfrom the risk and therefore also donít give them the big rewards. Iím notsaying this is what cultures ought to do, morally, but cultures arenít moralbeings. They do what they do for pragmatic reasons driven by competitionagainst other systems and other groups.
Stereotypes at Harvard
††††††††††† I said thattoday most people hold more favorable stereotypes of women than men. It was notalways thus. Up until about the 1960s, psychology (like society) tended to seemen as the norm and women as the slightly inferior version. During the 1970s,there was a brief period of saying there were no real differences, juststereotypes. Only since about 1980 has the dominant view been that women arebetter and men are the inferior version.
The surprising thing to me is thatit took little more than a decade to go from one view to its opposite, that is,from thinking men are better than women to thinking women are better than men.How is this possible?
††††††††††† Iím sureyouíre expecting me to talk about LarrySummers at some point, so letís get it over with! You recall
††††††††††† What washis crime? Nobody accused him of actually discriminating against women. Hismisdeed was to think thoughts that are not allowed to be thought, namely thatthere might be more men with high ability. The only permissible explanation forthe lack of top women scientists is patriarchy ó that men are conspiring tokeep women down. It canít be ability. Actually, there is some evidence that menon average are a little better at math, but letís assume Summerswas talking about general intelligence. People can point to plenty of data thatthe average IQ of adult men is about the same as the average for women. So tosuggest that men are smarter than women is wrong. No wonder some women wereoffended.
††††††††††† But thatísnot what he said. He said there were more men at the top levels of ability.That could still be true despite the average being the same ó if there are alsomore men at the bottom of the distribution, more really stupid men than women.During the controversy about his remarks, I didnít see anybody raise thisquestion, but the data are there, indeed abundant, and they are indisputable.There are more males than females with really low IQs. Indeed,
††††††††††† All thoseretarded boys are not the handiwork of patriarchy. Men are not conspiringtogether to make each otherís sons mentally retarded.
††††††††††† Almostcertainly, it is something biological and genetic. And my guess is that thegreater proportion of men at both extremes of the IQ distribution is part ofthe same pattern. Nature rolls the dice with men more than women.
Again, there is a reason for this,to which I shall return.
††††††††††† For now,the point is that it explains how we can have opposite stereotypes. Men go toextremes more than women. Stereotypes are sustained by confirmation bias. Wantto think men are better than women? Then look at the top, the heroes, theinventors, the philanthropists, and so on. Want to think women are better thanmen? Then look at the bottom, the criminals, the junkies, the losers.
††††††††††† In animportant sense, men really are betterAND worse than women.
††††††††††† A patternof more men at both extremes can create all sorts of misleading conclusions andother statistical mischief. To illustrate, letís assume that men and women areon average exactly equal in every relevant respect, but more men at bothextremes. If you then measure things that are bounded at one end, it screws upthe data to make men and women seem significantly different.
Consider grade point average incollege. Thanks to grade inflation, most students now get Aís and Bís, but afew range all the way down to F. With that kind of low ceiling, thehigh-achieving males cannot pull up the male average, but the loser males willpull it down. The result will be that women will get higher average grades thanmen ó again despite no difference in average quality of work.
††††††††††† Theopposite result comes with salaries. There is a minimum wage but no maximum.Hence the high-achieving men can pull the male average up while thelow-achieving ones canít pull it down. The result? Menwill get higher average salaries than women, even if there is no averagedifference on any relevant input.
††††††††††† Today, sureenough, women get higher college grades but lower salaries than men. There ismuch discussion about what all this means and what should be done about it. Butas you see, both facts could be just a statistical quirk stemming from maleextremity.
††††††††††† When youthink about it, the idea that one gender is all-around better than the other isnot very plausible. Why would nature make one gender better than the other?Evolution selects for good, favorable traits, and if thereís one good way tobe, after a few generations everyone will be that way.
††††††††††† Butevolution will preserve differences when there is a tradeoff: when one trait isgood for one thing, while the opposite is good for something else.
††††††††††† Letísreturn to the three main theories weíve had about gender: Men are better, nodifference, and women are better. Whatís missing from that list? Different butequal. Let me propose that as a rival theory that deserves to be considered. Ithink itís actually the most plausible one. Natural selection will preserveinnate differences between men and women as long as the different traits arebeneficial in different circumstances or for different tasks.
††††††††††† Tradeoffexample: African-Americans suffer from sickle cell anemia more than whitepeople. This appears to be due to a genetic vulnerability. That gene, however,promotes resistance to malaria. Black people evolved in regions where malariawas a major killer, so it was worth having this gene despite the increased riskof sickle cell anemia. White people evolved in colder regions, where there wasless malaria, and so the tradeoff was resolved differently, more avoiding thegene that prevented malaria while risking sickle cell anemia.
††††††††††† Thetradeoff approach yields a radicaltheory of gender equality. Men and women may be different, but eachadvantage may be linked to a disadvantage.
††††††††††† Hencewhenever you hear a report that one gender is better at something, stop andconsider why this is likely true ó and what the opposite trait might be goodfor.
††††††††††† Before wego too far down that path, though, let me raise another radical idea. Maybe
††††††††††† Return fora moment to the Larry Summers issue about why there arenít more female physicsprofessors at Harvard. Maybe women can do math and science perfectly well butthey just donít like to. After all, most men donít like math either! Of thesmall minority of people who do like math, there are probably more men thanwomen. Research by Eccles has repeatedly concluded that the shortage of femalesin math and science reflects motivation more than ability. And by the samelogic, I suspect most men could learn to change diapers and vacuum under the sofaperfectly well too, and if men donít do those things, itís because they donítwant to or donít like to, not because they are constitutionally unable (much asthey may occasionally pretend otherwise!).
††††††††††† Severalrecent works have questioned the whole idea of gender differences in abilities:Even when average differences are found, they tend to be extremely small. Incontrast, when you look at what men and women want, what they like, there aregenuine differences. Look at research on the sex drive: Men and women may haveabout equal ďabilityĒ in sex, whatever that means, but there are bigdifferences as to motivation: which gender thinks about sex all the time, wantsit more often, wants more different partners, risks more for sex, masturbatesmore, leaps at every opportunity, and so on. Our survey of published researchfound that pretty much every measure and every study showed
Likewise, I mentioned the salary difference, but itmay have less to do with ability than motivation. High salaries come fromworking super-long hours. Workaholicsare mostly men. (There are some women, just not as many as men.) One studycounted that over 80% of the people who work 50-hour weeks are men.
††††††††††† That meansthat if we want to achieve our ideal of equal salaries for men and women, wemay need to legislate the principle of equal pay forless work. Personally, I support that principle. But I recognize itís a hardsell.
††††††††††† Creativitymay be another example of gender difference in motivation rather than ability.The evidence presents a seeming paradox, because the tests of creativitygenerally show men and women scoring about the same, yet through history somemen have been much more creative than women. An explanation that fits thispattern is that men and women have the same creative ability but differentmotivations.
††††††††††† I am amusician, and Iíve long wondered about this difference. We know from theclassical music scene that women can play instruments beautifully, superbly,proficiently ó essentially just as well as men. They can and many do. Yet injazz, where the performer has to be creative while playing, there is a stunningimbalance: hardly any women improvise.Why? The ability is there but perhaps the motivation is less. They donítfeel driven to do it.
††††††††††† I supposethe stock explanation for any such difference is that women were notencouraged, or were not appreciated, or were discouraged from being creative.But I donít think this stock explanation fits the facts very well. In the 19thcentury in America, middle-class girls and women played piano far more thanmen. Yet all that piano playing failed to result in any creative output. Therewere no great women composers, no new directions in style of music or how toplay, or anything like that. All those female pianists entertained theirfamilies and their dinner guests but did not seem motivated to create anythingnew.
Meanwhile, at about the same time,black men in America created blues and then jazz, both of which changed the waythe world experiences music. By any measure, those black men, mostly justemerging from slavery, were far more disadvantaged than the middle-class whitewomen. Even getting their hands on a musical instrument must have beenconsiderably harder. And remember, Iím saying that the creative abilities areprobably about equal. But somehow the men were driven to create something new,more than the women.
††††††††††† One test ofwhatís meaningfully real is the marketplace. Itís hard to find anybody makingmoney out of gender differences in abilities. But in motivation, there areplenty. Look at the magazine industry: menís magazines cover different stufffrom womenís magazines, because men and women like and enjoy and are interestedin different things. Look at the difference in films between the menís andwomenís cable channels. Look at the difference in commercials for men or forwomen.
††††††††††† This bringsus to an important part of the argument. Iím suggesting the important differencesbetween men and women are to be found in motivation rather than ability. What,then, are these differences? I want to emphasize two.
††††††††††† The firstbig, basic difference has to do with what I consider to be the most underappreciatedfact about gender. Consider this question: What percent of our ancestors werewomen?
Itís not a trick question, and itísnot 50%. True, about half the people who ever lived were women, but thatís notthe question. Weíre asking about all the people who ever lived who
††††††††††† Recentresearch using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago.
††††††††††† I thinkthis difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To getthat kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entirehistory of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.
††††††††††† Right nowour field is having a lively debate about how much behavior can be explained byevolutionary theory. But if evolution explains anything at all, it explainsthings related to reproduction, because reproduction is at the heart of naturalselection. Basically, the traits that were mosteffective for reproduction would be at the center of evolutionary psychology.It would be shocking if these vastly different reproductive odds for men and womenfailed to produce some personality differences.
††††††††††† For womenthroughout history (and prehistory), the odds of reproducing have been prettygood. Later in this talk we will ponder things like, why was it so rare for ahundred women to get together and build a ship and sail off to explore unknownregions, whereas men have fairly regularly done such things? But taking chanceslike that would be stupid, from the perspective of a biological organismseeking to reproduce. They might drown or be killed by savages or catch adisease. For women, the optimal thing to do is go along with the crowd, benice, play it safe. The odds are good that men will come along and offer sexand youíll be able to have babies. All that matters is choosing the best offer.Weíre descended from women who played it safe.
††††††††††† For men,the outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd and play itsafe, the odds are you wonít have children. Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today.Their lines were dead ends. Henceit was necessary to take chances, try new things, be creative,
††††††††††† The hugedifference in reproductive success very likely contributed to some personalitydifferences, because different traits pointed the way to success. Women didbest by minimizing risks, whereas the successful men were the ones who tookchances. Ambition and competitive striving probably mattered more to malesuccess (measured in offspring) than female. Creativity was probably morenecessary, to help the individual man stand out in some way. Even the sex drivedifference was relevant: For many men, there would be few chances to reproduceand so they had to be ready for every sexual opportunity. If a man said ďnottoday, I have a headache,Ē he might miss his only chance.
Look at it this way. Most womenhave only a few children, and hardly any have more than a dozen ó but many
††††††††††† In terms ofthe biological competition to produce offspring, then, men outnumbered women both among the losers and among the biggest winners.
††††††††††† To put thisin more subjective terms: When I walk around and try to look at men and womenas if seeing them for the first time, itís hard to escape the impression(sorry, guys!) that women are simply more likeable and lovable than men. (ThisI think explains the ďWAW†effectĒ mentioned earlier.) Men might wish to be lovable, and mencan and do manage to get women to love them (so the ability is there), but menhave other priorities, other motivations. For women, being lovable was the keyto attracting the best mate. For men, however, it was more a matter of beatingout lots of other men even to have a chance for a mate.
††††††††††† And it wasworth it, even despite the ďmostly unsuccessfullyĒ part. Experts estimateGenghis Khan had several hundred and perhaps more than a thousand children. Hetook big risks and eventually conquered most of the known world. For him, thebig risks led to huge payoffs in offspring. My point is that no woman, even ifshe conquered twice as much territory as Genghis Khan, could have had athousand children. Striving for greatness in that sense offered the humanfemale no such biological payoff. For the man, the possibility was there, andso the blood of Genghis Khan runs through a large segment of todayís humanpopulation. By definition, only a few men can achieve greatness, but for thefew men who do, the gains have been real. And we are descended from those greatmen much more than from other men. Remember, most of the mediocre men left nodescendants at all.
††††††††††† Let me turnnow to the second big motivational difference. This has its roots in anexchange in the Psychological Bulletin about ten years ago, but the issue isstill fresh and relevant today. It concerns the question of whether women aremore social than men.
††††††††††† The ideathat women are more social was raised by Cross and Madsen in a manuscriptsubmitted to that journal. I was sent it to review, and although I disagreedwith their conclusion, I felt they had made their case well, so I advocatedpublishing their paper. They provided plenty of evidence. They said thingslike, look, men are more aggressive than women.Aggression could damage a relationship because if you hurt someone then thatperson might not want to be with you. Women refrain from aggression becausethey want relationships, but men donít care about relationships and so arewilling to be aggressive. Thus, the difference in aggression shows that womenare more social than men.
††††††††††† But I hadjust published my early work on ďthe need to belong,Ē which concluded that bothmen and women had that need, and so I was worried to hear that men donít careabout social connection. I wrote a reply that said there was another way tolook at all the evidence Cross and Madsen covered.
††††††††††† The gist ofour view was that there are twodifferent ways of being social. In social psychology we tend to emphasizeclose, intimate relationships, and yes, perhaps women specialize in those andare better at them than men. But one can also look at being social in terms ofhaving larger networks of shallower relationships, and on these,perhaps, men are more social than women.
††††††††††† Itís likethe common question, whatís more important to you, having a few closefriendships or having lots of people who know you? Most people say the formeris more important. But the large network of shallow relationships might beimportant too. We shouldnít automatically see men as second-class human beingssimply because they specialize in the less important, less satisfying kind ofrelationship. Men are social too ó justin a different way.
††††††††††† So wereexamined the evidence Cross and Madsen had provided. Consider aggression.True, women are less aggressive than men, no argument there. But is it reallybecause women donít want to jeopardize a close relationship? It turns out thatin close relationships, women are plenty aggressive. Women are if anything
††††††††††† Instead,the difference is found in the broader social sphere. Women donít hitstrangers. The chances that a woman will, say, go to the mall and end up in aknife fight with another woman are vanishingly small, but there is more suchrisk for men. The gender difference in aggression is mainly found there, in thebroader network of relationships. Because men care more aboutthat network.
††††††††††† Nowconsider helping. Most research finds that men help more than women. Cross andMadsen struggled with that and eventually just fell back on the tired clichťthat maybe women donít help because they arenít brought up to help or arenítsocialized to help. But I think the pattern is the same as with aggression.Most research looks at helping between strangers, in the larger social sphere,and so it finds men helping more. Inside the family, though, women are plentyhelpful, if anything more than men.
††††††††††† Aggressionand helping are in some ways opposites, so the converging pattern is quitemeaningful. Women both help and aggress in the intimate sphere of closerelationships, because thatís what they care about. In contrast, men care(also) about the broader network of shallower relationships, and so they areplenty helpful and aggressive there.
††††††††††† The same
When two girls are playing togetherand the researchers bring in a third one, the two girls resist letting herjoin. But two boys will let a third boy join their game. My point is that girlswant the one-on-one connection, so adding a third person spoils the time forthem, but it doesnít spoil it for the boys.
††††††††††† Theconclusion is that men and women are both social but in different ways.
††††††††††† Again,important personality differences probably follow from the basic motivationaldifference in the kind of social relationship that interests men and women.
††††††††††† Considerthe common finding that women are more emotionally expressive than men. For anintimate relationship, good communication is helpful. It enables the two peopleto understand each other, appreciate each otherís feelings, and so forth. Themore the two intimate partners know about each other, the better they can carefor and support each other. But in a large group, where you have rivals andmaybe enemies, itís risky to let all your feelings show. The same goes foreconomic transactions. When you are negotiating the price of something, itísbest to keep your feelings a bit to yourself. And so men hold back more.
††††††††††† Fairness isanother example. Research by Major and others back in the 1970s used procedureslike this. A group of subjects would perform a task, and the experimenter wouldthen say that the group had earned a certain amount of money, and it was up toone member to divide it up however he or she wanted. The person could keep allthe money, but that wasnít usually what happened. Women would divide the moneyequally, with an equal share for everybody. Men, in contrast, would divide itunequally, giving the biggest share of reward to whoever had done the mostwork.
††††††††††† Which isbetter? Neither. Both equality and equity are valid versions of fairness. Butthey show the different social sphere orientation. Equality is better for closerelationships, when people take care of each other and reciprocate things anddivide resources and opportunities equally. In contrast, equity ó giving biggerrewards for bigger contributions ó is more effective in large groups. I havenítactually checked, but Iím willing to bet that if you surveyed the Fortune 500large and successful corporations in America, you wouldnít find a single oneout of 500 that pays every employee the same salary. The more valuable workerswho contribute more generally get paid more. It simply is a more effectivesystem in large groups. The male patternis suited for the large groups, the female pattern isbest suited to intimate pairs.
††††††††††† Ditto forthe communal-exchange difference Women have more communal orientation, men moreexchange. In psychology we tend to think of communal as a more advanced form ofrelationship than exchange. For example, weíd be suspicious of a couple whoafter ten years of marriage are still saying, ďI paid the electric bill lastmonth, now itís your turn.Ē But the supposed superiority of communalrelationships applies mainly to intimate relationships. At the level of largesocial systems, itís the other way around. Communal (including communist)countries remain primitive and poor, whereas the rich, advanced nations havegotten where they are by means of economic exchange.
††††††††††† Thereísalso the point about men being more competitive, women more cooperative. Again,though, cooperation is much more useful than competition for closerelationships. What use is there in competing against your spouse? But in largegroups, getting to the top can be crucial. The male preferencefor dominance hierarchies, and the ambitious striving to get to the top,likewise reflect an orientation toward the large group, not a dislike ofintimacy. And remember, most men didnít reproduce, and weíre mainly descendedfrom the men who did fight their way to the top. Not so for women.
Itís different in a one-to-onerelationship. A womanís husband, and her baby, will love her even if shedoesnít play the trombone. So cultivating a unique skill isnít essential forher. But playing the trombone is a way to get into some groups, especiallybrass bands. This is another reason that men go to extremes more than women.Large groups foster the need to establish something different and special aboutyourself.
††††††††††† Letís turnnow to culture. Culture is relatively new in evolution. It continues the lineof evolution that made animals social. I understand culture as a kind of systemthat enables the human group to work together effectively, using information.Culture is a new, improved way of being social.
††††††††††† Feminismhas taught us to see culture as men against women. Instead, I think theevidence indicates that culture emerged mainly with men and women workingtogether, but working against other groups of men and women. Often the mostintense and productive competitions were groups of men against other groups ofmen, though both groups depended on support from women.
††††††††††† Cultureenables the group to be more than the sum of its parts (its members).
††††††††††† Culturethus provides some benefit from having a system. Letís call this ďsystem gain,Ēwhich means how much better the group does because of the system. Think of twosoccer teams. Both sets of players know the rules and have the same individualskills. One group has only that, and they go out to play as individuals tryingto do their best. The other works as a team, complementing each other, playingwith a system. The system will likely enable them to do better than the groupplaying as separate individuals. Thatís system gain.
††††††††††† And onevital fact is that the scope of system gain increases with the size of thesystem. This is essentially whatís happening in the world right now,globalization in the world economy. Bigger systems provide more benefits, so aswe expand and merge more units into bigger systems, overall there is more gain.
††††††††††† There isone crucial implication from all this. Culture depends on system gain, andbigger systems provide more of this. Therefore, youíll get more of the benefitof culture from large groups than from small ones. A one-on-one closerelationship can do a little in terms of division of labor and sharinginformation, but a 20-person group can do much more.
††††††††††† Thisprovides a new basis for understanding gender politics and inequality.
††††††††††† Thegenerally accepted view is that back in early human society, men and women wereclose to equal. Men and women had separate spheres and did different things,but both were respected. Often, women were gatherers and men were hunters. Thetotal contribution to the groupís food was about the same, even though therewere some complementary differences. For example, the gatherersí food wasreliably there most days, while the hunters brought home great food once in awhile but nothing on other days.
††††††††††† Genderinequality seems to have increased with early civilization, includingagriculture. Why? The feminist explanation has been that the men bandedtogether to create patriarchy. This is essentially a conspiracy theory, andthere is little or no evidence that it is true. Some argue that the men erasedit from the history books in order to safeguard their newly won power. Still,the lack of evidence should be worrisome, especially since this same kind ofconspiracy would have had to happen over and over, in group after group, allover the world.
††††††††††† Let meoffer a different explanation. Itís not that the men pushed the women down.Rather, itís just that the womenís sphere remained about where it was, whilethe menís sphere, with its big and shallow social networks, slowly benefitedfrom the progress of culture. By accumulating knowledge and improving the gainsfrom division of labor, the menís sphere gradually made progress.
††††††††††† Hencereligion, literature, art, science, technology, military action, trade andeconomic marketplaces, political organization, medicine ó these all mainlyemerged from the menís sphere. The womenís sphere did not produce such things,though it did other valuable things, like take care of the next generation sothe species would continue to exist.
††††††††††† Why? It hasnothing to do with men having better abilities or talents or anything likethat. It comes mainly from the different kinds of social relationships. Thewomenís sphere consisted of women and therefore was organized on the basis ofthe kind of close, intimate, supportive one-on-one relationships that womenfavor. These are vital, satisfying relationships that contribute vitally tohealth and survival. Meanwhile the menfavored the larger networks of shallower relationships. These are less satisfyingand nurturing and so forth, but they do form a more fertile basis for theemergence of culture.
††††††††††† Note thatall those things I listed ó literature, art, science, etc ó are optional. Womenwere doing what was vital for the survival of the species. Without intimatecare and nurturance, children wonít survive, and the group will die out. Womencontributed the necessities of life. Menís contributions were more optional,luxuries perhaps. But culture is a powerful engine of making life better.Across many generations, culture can create large amounts of wealth, knowledge,and power. Culture did this ó but mainly in the menís sphere.
††††††††††† Thus, thereason for the emergence of genderinequality may have little to do with men pushing women down in somedubious patriarchal conspiracy. Rather, it camefrom the fact that wealth, knowledge, and power were created in the meníssphere. This is what pushed the menís sphere ahead. Not oppression.
††††††††††† Givingbirth is a revealing example. What could be more feminine than giving birth?Throughout most of history and prehistory, giving birth was at the center ofthe womenís sphere, and men were totally excluded. Men were rarely or neverpresent at childbirth, nor was the knowledge about birthing even shared withthem. But not very long ago, men were finally allowed to get involved, and themen were able to figure out ways to make childbirth safer for both mother andbaby. Think of it: the most quintessentially female activity, and yet the menwere able to improve on it in ways the women had not discovered for thousandsand thousands of years.
††††††††††† Letís notoverstate. The women had after all managed childbirth pretty well for all thosecenturies. The species had survived, which is the bottom line. The women hadmanaged to get the essential job done. What the men added was, from theperspective of the group or species at least, optional, a bonus: some mothersand babies survived who would otherwise have died. Still, the improvements showsome value coming from the male way of being social. Large networks can collectand accumulate information better than small ones, and so in a relatively shorttime the men were able to discover improvements that the women hadnít been ableto find. Again, itís not that the men were smarter or more capable. Itís justthat the women shared their knowledge individually, from mother to
††††††††††† With that,we can now return to the question of what men are good for, from theperspective of a cultural system. The context is these systems competingagainst other systems, group against group. The group systems that used theirmen and women most effectively would enable their groups to outperform theirrivals and enemies.
††††††††††† I want toemphasize three main answers for how culture uses men.
††††††††††† This stillseems to be true today. Several recent news articles have called attention tothe fact that women now start more small businesses then men. This is usuallycovered in the media as a positive sign about women, which it is. But womenpredominate only if you count all businesses. If you restrict the criteria tobusinesses that employ more than one person, or ones that make enough money tolive off of, then men create more. I suspect that the bigger the group you lookat, the more they are male-created.
Certainly today anybody of anygender can start a business, and if anything there aresome set-asides and advantages to help women do so. There are no hiddenobstacles or blocks, and thatís shown by the fact that women start morebusinesses than men. But the women are content to stay small, such as operatinga part-time business out of the spare bedroom, making a little extra money forthe family. They donít seem driven to build these up into giant corporations.There are some exceptions, of course, but there is a big difference on average.
††††††††††† Hence bothmen and women rely on men to create the giant social structures that offeropportunities to both. And it is clear men and women can both perform quitewell in these organizations. But culture still relies mainly on men to makethem in the first place.
††††††††††† A secondthing that makes men useful to culture is what I call male expendability. Thisgoes back to what I said at the outset, that cultures tend to use men for thehigh-risk, high-payoff undertakings, where a significant portion of those willsuffer bad outcomes ranging from having their time wasted, all the way to beingkilled.
††††††††††† Any man whoreads the newspapers will encounter the phrase ďeven women and childrenĒ acouple times a month, usually about being killed. The literal meaning of thisphrase is that menís lives have less value than other peopleís lives. The ideais usually ďItís bad if people are killed, but itís especially bad if women andchildren are killed.Ē And I think most men know that in an emergency, if thereare women and children present, he will be expected to lay down his lifewithout argument or complaint so that the others can survive.
††††††††††† Mostcultures have had the same attitude. Why? There are pragmatic reasons. When acultural group competes against other groups, in general, the larger grouptends to win out in the long run. Hence most cultures have promoted populationgrowth. And that depends on women. Tomaximize reproduction, a culture needs all the wombs it can get, but a fewpenises can do the job. There is usually a penile surplus. If a group loseshalf its men, the next generation can still be full-sized. But if it loses halfits women, the size of the next generation will be severely curtailed. Hencemost cultures keep their women out of harmís way while using men for riskyjobs.
††††††††††† These riskyjobs extend beyond the battlefield. Many lines of endeavor require some livesto be wasted. Exploration, for example: a culture may send out dozens ofparties, and some will get lost or be killed, while others bring back richesand opportunities. Research is somewhat the same way: There may be a dozenpossible theories about some problem, only one of which is correct, so thepeople testing the eleven wrong theories will end up wasting their time andruining their careers, in contrast to the lucky one who gets the Nobel
††††††††††† Anotherbasis of male expendability is built into the different ways of being social.Expendability comes with the large groups that male sociality creates. In anintimate, one-to-one relationship, neither person can really be replaced. Youcan remarry if your spouse dies, but it isnít really the same marriage orrelationship. And of course nobody can ever really replace a childís mother orfather.
In contrast, large groups can anddo replace just about everybody. Take any large organization ó the Ford MotorCompany, the U.S. Army, the Green Bay Packers ó and youíll find that theorganization goes on despite having replaced every single person in it.Moreover, every member off those groups knows he or she can be replaced andprobably will be replaced some day.
††††††††††† Somesociological writings about the male role have emphasized that
††††††††††† Again, Iímnot saying men have it worse than women. There are plenty of problems anddisadvantages that cultures put on women. My point is just that cultures findmen useful in these very specific ways. Requiring the man to earn respect byproducing wealth and value that can support himselfand others is one of these. Women do not face this particular challenge orrequirement.
††††††††††† Thesedemands also contribute to various male behavior patterns. The ambition,competition, and striving for greatness may well be linked to this requirementto fight for respect. All-male groups tend to be marked by putdowns and otherpractices that remind everybody that there is NOT enough respect to go around,because this awareness motivates each man to try harder to earn respect. This,incidentally, has probably been a major source of friction as women have movedinto the workplace, and organizations have had to shift toward policies thateveryone is entitled to respect. The men hadnít originally built them torespect everybody.
††††††††††† One of thebasic, most widely accepted gender differences is agency versus communion. Maleagency may be partly an adaptation to this kind of social life based on largergroups, where people arenít necessarily valued and one has to strive forrespect. To succeed in the male social sphere of large groups, you need anactive, agentic self to fight for your place, becauseit isnít given to you and only a few will be successful. Even the male ego, with its concern with proving oneself andcompeting against others, seems likely to be designed to cope with systems where there is a shortage of respect andyou have to work hard to get some ó or else youíll be exposed to humiliation.
††††††††††† I have notexhausted all the ways that culture exploits men. Certainly there are others.The male sex drive can be harnessed to motivate all sorts of behaviors and putto work in a kind of economic marketplace in which men give women otherresources (love, money, commitment) in exchange for sex.
Cultures also use individual menfor symbolic purposes more than women. This can be in a positive way, such asthe fact that cultures give elaborate funerals and other memorials to men whoseem to embody its favorite values. It can also be negative, such as whencultures ruin a manís career, shame him publicly, or even execute him for asingle act that violates one of its values. From Martin Luther King to Don
††††††††††† Tosummarize my main points: A few lucky men are at the top of society and enjoythe cultureís best rewards. Others, less fortunate, have their lives chewed upby it. Culture uses both men and women, but most cultures use them in somewhatdifferent ways. Most cultures see individual men as more expendable thanindividual women, and this difference is probablybased on nature, in whose reproductive competition some men are the big losersand other men are the biggest winners. Hence it uses men for the many riskyjobs it has.
Men go to extremes more than women,and this fits in well with culture using them to try out lots of differentthings, rewarding the winners and crushing the losers.
††††††††††† Culture isnot about men against women. By and large, cultural progress emerged from groupsof men working with and against other men. While women concentrated on theclose relationships that enabled the species to survive, men created the biggernetworks of shallow relationships, less necessary for survival but eventuallyenabling culture to flourish. The gradual creation of wealth, knowledge, andpower in the menís sphere was the source of gender inequality. Men created thebig social structures that comprise society, and men still are mainlyresponsible for this, even though we now see that women can perform perfectlywell in these large systems.
††††††††††† What seemsto have worked best for cultures is to play off the men against each other,competing for respect and other rewards that end up distributed very unequally.Men have to prove themselves by producing things the society values. They haveto prevail over rivals and enemies in cultural competitions, which is probablywhy they arenít as lovable as women.
The essence of how culture uses mendepends on a basic social insecurity. This insecurity is in fact social,existential, and biological. Built into the male role is the danger of notbeing good enough to be accepted and respected and even the danger of not beingable to do well enough to create offspring.
The basic social insecurity ofmanhood is stressful for the men, and it is hardly surprising that so many mencrack up or do evil or heroic things or die younger than women. But thatinsecurity is useful and productive for the culture, the system.
Again, Iím not saying