I think there are different forms of male domination, different permutations of which exist in different combinations throughout time.
The physical-dominance aspect exists, but I don’t think it is important as it is given credit as being. We don’t, for example, see widespread domination over short dudes. No society has ever been okay with enslaving petit guys. There are parts of the world where relatively tall and relatively short ethnic groups live and compete over resources, but the physical mismatch isn’t usually the deciding factor in things. And the reality is that we’ve evolved weapons and societies precisely so that we aren’t having to street brawl over every little thing- and for the most part this works.
The aspect that we are most familiar with and concerned about involve controlling a woman’s sexuality. This includes things like virginity fetishes, female seclusion, female genital mutilation, food binding, child marriage, mistrust of female education, etc. I think these are rather specifically agricultural inventions. Basically, farmland can only be subdivided so often until it becomes useless for anyone, so strict and complex rules of inheritance evolve. This makes it extra-important for men to ensure that their inheritance is going to their biological son, in a way that it’s not important when your inheritance consists of a few gourds and a really nice walking stick. That is where these sexual controls come from.
Non-agricultural societies are not the paragons of equality, but you do see a great deal more variation. And you can see this process pretty explicitly in our own society, in which sexual controls have fallen away pretty much in synch with our change into a post-agricultural society.
This is something that I have been wondering about, actually, and maybe someone smarter than me can explain it.
I think that traditionally, women have been favored over men, especially in heavily patriarchal societies.
Women in patriarchal societies are restricted because they are being ‘protected’. Women aren’t allowed to participate in wars, bear the burden (and likelihood of being challenged/killed) of leadership, go out on their own where they may be hurt, hunt, play sports, etc.
Men, on the other hand, are irrelevant. Men do hunt, play sports, participate in wars. Their lives are irrelevant. Women’s lives are given much more weight and much more importance.
Of course, in order to be so protected, the women have to lose their freedom. This is not an endorsement of patriarchy – far from it – but it makes me wonder: is it men that are favored? Also, is it possible to have a truly matriarchal society, unless there was some set of circumstances that would make men be the ones in need of protection, instead of women?
The greater spread in male IQ is widely known; for example, this article found not only a significant male advantage in the mean IQ, but a greater spread, so that males predominate in the very high IQ ranges, especially in quantitative reasoning.
If you accept that claim, there is no political explanation needed for why most societies are dominated by men. On the contrary, it would be interesting to understand why some societies are not dominated by men, whether it has to do with politics or whatever.
Sure, poor black communities in the States. But the same phenomenon occurs with underclass English in urban council estates and poor Irish Catholics in northern Ireland. Women hold most of the legit jobs, and get the far greater share of the government assistance.
Men in these environments are typically violent, unproductive, and dead at an early age. They generally have problems cooperating with other men, being more likely to fight than to work together. They generally invest less effort in their communities and the children they’ve fathered.
Poor Latino communities in the States certainly have their problems, but they’re significantly less violent, more prosperous, and have fewer illegitimate children than their black counterparts. My belief here is that the more patriarchal structure in the poor Latino communities is a major factor in this.
Of course, we may be looking at correlation versus causation issues, and it may be that improved economic and social conditions are causes, not effects, of patriarchal social structures.
Soviet Russian policies involved a fair amount of state encouraged gender egalitarianism, as well as subsidies for single mothers. Not really a traditionalist patriarchy at all.
As I said upthread, male chauvinism/patriarchy seems to be the best way to get men to cooperate with each other and invest in their communities. At the same time, even the more benevolent forms of patriarchy seem to come at the cost of limiting women’s individual freedom.
African-Americans, poor Irish Catholics and the British underclass are hardly known for their enormous feminist streak. In fact, I’d venture that all are known for being more patriarchal than the mainstream cultures they exist within. I highly doubt their gendered earning patterns are a cause of social strife, as much as a symptom.
What goes on there is that the men are marginalized- not by the women, but by larger cultural and economic forces. And yeah, when half your population is in bad shape, it tends to have an effect on the culture as a whole.
Anyway, the main flaw in your theory is that it just doesn’t work. We live in the safest, most stable, richest place and time in history, and our society has enormously more gender equity than just about any other place on earth or in history. By your theory, we should all be waiting while Sub-Saharan Africa and the most backwards parts of the Middle East surpass us with their awesome male cooperation.
Indeed, in modern development economics, gender equality is extremely well correlated with better development. The number one strongest correlate of child health (and thus life expectancy in general) and birth rate (and the economic advantages that come with a lower birth rate) for example, is female education. Gender is a development concern not out of touchy-feelyness, but because having half your population healthy, economically productive and educated does a lot more for a society than the alternatives.
This follows on the other thread about breeding smart ***and ***good-looking humans. Women are more discriminating, and therefore pick the smarter males. (Probably, which also the more successful ones). Men, of course, are not so discriminating. Therefore, thanks to women, men will evolve to become smarter while women, thatnks to men’s less discriminating ways, will not be selected for in this way.
Primarily, the social differences come from competition. Men compete for women. Society make set certain norms to prevent men from completely killing each other; society may allow women some choice in who they reproduce with; but in the end, a dominant driver in male behaviour is the need to beat out other men for the “favours” of women.
Also, in all this discussion of fighting males, let’s not forget the love. Seriously, humans have also evolved interpersonal affection (often to the point of extreme sacrifice, or irrational jealously) as another bond between men and women. Men may not want their “manhood” threatened, but that does not mean they are completely insensitive jerks. At least, … not all the men all the time.
Wouldn’t it be clearer and less provocative to say that mate selection puts pressure on each sex to adapt to the demands of the other? If women suddenly decided they liked guys with big noses, in a million years we’d all look like Jimmy Durante.
Note too that the greater spread in male IQ means there are more idiot men than idiot women. For every Einstein there’s a Butt-Head.
I don’t now that I would consider black communities in poorer areas of the US effectively “patriarchal” in any sense of the word. Adult black men are largely economically and socially marginalized in these communities. Female headed households and females making critical family decisions are the rule in these areas.
Please tell me how, in your view, poorer black American communities are operationally or attitudinal “patriarchal”.
I am going to sum up this thread: there really is no answer for this question. Rather, there may be several hypotheses waiting to be considered that may contribute to the widespread occurrence of this differences in gender.
I’ve been in the workforce for close to 20 years now. I’ve seen women work together as a cohesive group and men fight over trivial issues. I’ve also seen men and women work together as a group, without any trivial fighting, as well as the opposite. In fact, I’d have to say, just based on my personal experience that there is no difference between men and women as a whole when it comes to getting along with each other.
I mean I guess I should’ve been a bit clearer. I definitely would agree that women can work together, anyone who says it’s impossible is dumb so I take what I said back. I just notice the trivial petty fighting over simple stuff to be FARRRR more common in female groups. Or maybe my military experience just adds extra weight to the whole male group thing? But that’s just my opinion, I really can’t say for a fact or anything why any other society favors them but as me being a part of a society I will give MY reason for the preference so maybe just maybe others in other societies share my opinion.
There is a ton of stuff like this. Or you could look at African-American cultural products- there are some products aimed at women that take a decidedly feminist stance, but products aimed at men generally aren’t that flattering to women. Indeed, the casual misogyny celebrated in stuff like rap music is pretty well documented. In my own experience, African-American culture can be sexually conservative, with a much larger divide between “good” girls and “bad” girls. I’ve also seen that marriage relations tend to follow traditional gender roles fairly strictly, with the husband being the “man of the house.”
There is more to gender equality than money. Women also need to feel free from threats of gender-based violence, free to experience their sexuality, able to determine their own future- including taking advantage of educational and career opportunities, able to ensure their personal safety, etc. Poor African-American households- even those headed by women- often do not have this. Working three jobs to live paycheck-to-paycheck in a bad neighborhood while raising your kids alone is not equality.
That Lynn study is some seriously bad science. First of all, brain size is not the best measure of intelligence, otherwise whales would rule the world. While we use brain-to-body ratio as part of a means of judging intelligence between species, that doesn’t mean that we can use it within the species. The data on brain size predicting intelligence is still out, as one can find plenty of studies both ways. For example, some point out that there is a greater correlation between brain size and height than brain size and intelligence. It is worth noting that famine and other situation can cause generations of individuals to be born shorter than they would otherwise be. So, when looking at a single population, one would expect those from historically poor backgrounds to be shorter than those from historically wealthier backgrounds. Therefore, taller individuals would score better than shorter individuals.
Secondly, the IQ test is a bit biased and not the best measurement of intelligence, in part because IQ varies within the individual over time. Girls score better compared to boys when younger, then worse as they get older.
Thirdly, IQ results are heavily dependent on culture and the brain transforms based on cultural patterns. Girls who grow up playing spatial games do just as well as boys in the spatial transformation sections of IQ tests. Also compare how well girls do on science and mathematics tests compared to boys based upon culture. In cultures where they are regarded as intellectual equals, they do just as well. For example, in the Netherlands, which is better in regard to gender relationships than the US, females score much better.
Even in the US, now that we’ve made better moves to help females in math, the gap between male and female performance is quickly declining. It’s worth noting that when reminded of their sex or race, women and blacks do worse on IQ tests than compared to their counterparts. A perfect example of this is the Ainu in Japan. As they are regarded as ‘less’ than the Japanese, they score very poorly when taking tests in Japan. The ones in the US? They score just as well as the Japanese. In the US, males are regarded as more intelligent and skillful. Cite
Also, patriarchal systems do not help males get along better with each other. In fact, matriarchical systems are better for reduced rates of male-male violence. That’s why bonobos males are less likely to be killed by other males than chimps are. The reason why patriarchal systems have dominated is because they are far more aggressive and violent. In fact, the worse the gender imbalance, the greater the violence. This system does not help males, as others have noted, unless you are very high quality or related to other males who are/were high quality. By suppressing women and young men, some males can retain a lot of power and resources. Since the females might naturally chose an attractive young stud over their decaying asses, they severely restrict the rights and abilities of females to chose their sexual partners on their own.
It’s also worth noting that gender equality positively correlates with GDP and one of the best ways to raise a nation out of poverty is to educate its women. It’s also worth noting that amongst our primate cousins, availability of resources correlates strongly with gender equality.
In prosperous areas, such as where the bonobos live in Africa and the squirrel monkeys live in Peru, resources are such that it pays females to band together. Thus, they are female dominated. For the squirrel monkeys in Surinam and the chimps across the river from the bonobos, the resources are scarce and the females cannot afford to band together. Therefore, the males can take over.
Finally, humans are a species in which the females have historically left their families in order to avoid incest. Since the males tended to hang around with their relatives, it made sense for them to band together. There is no good reason for unrelated females to band together against males with other unrelated females, unless the resource distribution is such that they are non-reliant on males for resources. HG societies generally allow females to be self-reliant for resources, but farming, herding, and many other economic systems do not. Our own society is one that has made females reliant on males for a very long time, which is why males have been so dominant.
Amongst the white-faced capuchins, the males are much bigger with larger canines compared to the females (we have a longer history of monogamy), but the females can still exhibit a lot of control because they remain with their family members, and they can form alliances against males. Size and strength doesn’t matter when an alliance is strong. I’ve seen very, very powerful males kowtow to the female alpha (often the true leader of the group) because they know they are powerless without her social support.
Well, except children of both sexes inherit from both parents.
To all, this (Warning, PDF) cite claims to show that differences in intelligence between genders is due entirely to cultural differences. Figure 1 seems to show higher variance among men, but I guess that’s down to men being favored in those societies to begin with?
Great examples. Obviously some seriously empowering feminist societies there, and a flawless demonstration of how these ideals have led to loss of competitiveness and marginalization. You have thought this through really well.
You should report back to your bible group now that you have successfully trounced the secular humanists at their own game!!
Rather quick on the draw, are we? Too committed to your ideology to have a dispassionate discussion on these issues? I challenge you to find one bit of advocacy in any of my posts in this thread.
I’m not wed to any particular ideological position here. I’m skeptical of feminist orthodoxy, sure, but I find the idea that subordination of women is common worldwide because it works to the benefit of societies as a whole to be depressing. It may yet still be true without regard to how you or I feel about it.
I’ll need more time to address even sven’s objections. I do have what I think are some decent answers.
To steer the discussion back to the OP, societies favor males as a kind of protection racket. Males get privileges, and in return, they refrain from destroying their communities from the inside out (the way males do in the cultures I mentioned upthread.) And/or the privileges males enjoy function as an incentive to risk their own lives in defense of their community, and repress their anti-social urges in order to invest effort socially productive activities. Does it have to be this way? I suspect it does, but I’m willing to be persuaded that there are other, workable solutions. (They actually have to work, and not merely make us feel good.)
There’s a huge difference between stable, functioning patriarchal social structures, and the pointless, destructive expressions of machismo that characterize poor black American communities. Make no mistake about it, women are firmly in economic control of these communities, as astro pointed out. Isa the bad behavior of the men in these communities a result of women having economic control? Is it purely cultural? If so, why do the same problems crop up among poor Irish Catholics in NI and poor Englishmen in council estates? Is there a better way? (Not a way that you are convinced is right for ideological reasons, but a way that actually works.)
This follows on the other thread about breeding smart ***and ***good-looking humans. Women are more discriminating, and therefore pick the smarter males. (Probably, which also the more successful ones). Men, of course, are not so discriminating. Therefore, thanks to women, men will evolve to become smarter while women, thatnks to men’s less discriminating ways, will not be selected for in this way.