# Why has male domination worked so well? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 2, 2016, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-male-domination-worked-so-well/770424 "2016-11-02T07:43:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2016, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-male-domination-worked-so-well/770424/81 "2016-11-03T20:30:49Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > We’re getting away from the subject of the thread: why has male domination worked for humanity? Arguments about discrimination right now are irrelevant. Because humans are highly intelligent, and form complex, hierarchical societies. This is such an advantage that even societies with low capitalization rates - ones that inhibit their members from reaching their full potential - were able to survive and thrive. Plug in the hierarchy of your choice, and the outcome likely remains the same. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2016, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-male-domination-worked-so-well/770424/82 "2016-11-03T20:34:06Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > We’re getting away from the subject of the thread: why has male domination worked for humanity? Arguments about discrimination right now are irrelevant. Because men and women are of roughly equal average intelligence compared to each other, but men on average have significantly more physical power than women. For millenia, societies could go to war with each other, commit genocide, atrocities, etc. In that sort of brutal Hobbesian world, those with physical power trumped those who didn’t have it. The relative peace and “civilized way of doing things” of the past century or so is a historical aberration. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2016, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-male-domination-worked-so-well/770424/83 "2016-11-03T22:07:38Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > those with physical power trumped those who didn’t have it. Surely it was those who _managed_ that physical power who trumped the others? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2016, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-male-domination-worked-so-well/770424/84 "2016-11-03T22:37:25Z")
> [@Vicsage](#): > > A while back, Little Nemo posted all the western countries and how they are dominated by men. Yet, most if not all those countries allow women to vote and probably, like our country, have a majority of women. So it seems that women don’t like women running them. :rolleyes: This is an example of the “cultural reset fallacy”, where people assume that changes in legislation somehow magically “reset” prejudicial attitudes and cultural factors to zero. So if any subsequent outcomes remain unequal, that demonstrates that inequality is somehow “natural” or “innate”. This, naturally, is bullshit. Women in almost all developed nations have had the vote for only about a century, and full legal equality for significantly less time than that. To expect that this brief period could have completely eradicated the ingrained influence of many thousands of years of entrenched gender inequality, so that everything nowadays is a completely level playing field, is, to put it bluntly, idiotic. > [@Quartz](#): > > We’re getting away from the subject of the thread: why has male domination worked for humanity? Well, what did you think of my earlier analogous question: “Why has religious belief worked for humanity?” > [@Kimstu](#): > > A lot of us around these parts aren’t particularly fans of religious belief, and feel that having less of it in the modern world is arguably a net improvement. Same with male domination. But there’s no denying that everything that humans have accomplished while being overwhelmingly patriarchal, we have also accomplished while being overwhelmingly believers in supernatural entities and moral/social codes ascribed to such entities. > > If you’re not willing to accept the assumption that religious belief must be intrinsically natural and right for human societies because we’ve had such overall success as a species being mostly religious, then you might want to take a closer look at the assumption that male dominance must be intrinsically a good fit for humans because we’ve done so well being mostly male-dominated. Ultimately, I think the core answer to both questions is basically what **Human Action** said: Humans are good at creating complex hierarchical societies that function very efficiently to promote their own survival. The particular conceptual structures that we build the hierarchy around can be pretty much anything: e.g., gendered social roles, religious worldview, etc. What really makes it “work” is the fact of the complex hierarchy itself. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2016, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-male-domination-worked-so-well/770424/85 "2016-11-03T23:50:01Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Well, what did you think of my earlier analogous question: “Why has religious belief worked for humanity?” Probably because I missed it. But that’s for another thread. > [@](#): > > Ultimately, I think the core answer to both questions is basically what **Human Action** said: Humans are good at creating complex hierarchical societies that function very efficiently to promote their own survival. But why male-dominated? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-male-domination-worked-so-well/770424/86 "2016-11-04T00:29:57Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Surely it was those who _managed_ that physical power who trumped the others? I’m not sure what you mean by this, but the vast majority of rulers and military commanders were men, too. And if an army of women had to defend against an army of men, in that day and age, most likely the men would prevail. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2016, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-male-domination-worked-so-well/770424/87 "2016-11-04T03:16:40Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > But why male-dominated? Sounds like you’re segueing into a different question there. You started out in your OP asking **why male domination has worked for humanity** , i.e., why have male-dominated human societies survived and in many respects flourished. And the sort-of-consensus answer seems to be something along the lines of _“male domination may not in fact be the best possible system for human beings, but as long as it helped provide a basis for building complex hierarchical social structures, it was good enough to get the job done in terms of allowing our species to survive and continually develop”_. Now, on the other hand, you seem to be asking **why male domination happened to be the pattern that these successful human societies followed**. You’ve had a variety of answers to that question too throughout this thread, but it’s not the same question as your original one. ---
**Author:** ![ZonexandScout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zonexandscout/32/544_2.png) [@ZonexandScout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZonexandScout)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2016, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-male-domination-worked-so-well/770424/88 "2016-11-05T12:45:29Z")
I’m prepared to be flamed, but, having spent years studying this subject and earning both undergraduate and graduate degrees in Physical Anthropology, I offer the following: If you care to learn more about this topic, I suggest you start by reading Darwin’s _The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex_. You may then want to read some of the work by R. Fisher, E. O. Wilson, R. L Trivers, and others. This material will introduce you to the basics of reproductive success, parental investment, sexual dimorphism, and many other useful concepts in understanding how humans (and other species that reproduce sexually) got to where we are today. As human beings, we sometimes fail to appreciate that the cultural and social advances of the last hundred years represent only the smallest fraction of human history. Finally, it is certainly NOT true that “primitive” cultures and social groups were more egalitarian regarding gender roles. To think this is pure fantasy. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2016, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-male-domination-worked-so-well/770424/89 "2016-11-05T18:02:40Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > While sexual division of labor may translate into inequality of decision-making, it isn’t necessarily so That’s irrelevant. It _is_ so for the groups in your cite (and also for every HG tribe I’ve ever studied up on). So _there_ may be mythical HG tribes where the men hunt but the women have a magic veto over their hunting. Mythical ideal tribes aren’t my concern. Real ones are. And in real ones, division of labour necessitates inequality of at least opportunity - if women aren’t allowed to hunt, are socially excluded from that, or any, economic activity, then the word egalitarian \*can not \*apply. > [@](#): > > (the notion that sexual division of labor in HGs has anything to do with modern “separate but equal” slogans is, of course, a risible rhetorical flourish). No, it’s a foundation of the strain of feminism I was taught that women’s rights are human rights. “Separate isn’t equal” applies just as much to “primitive” women as it does to any other excluded outgroup. > [@](#): > > Apparently, not all anthropologists share your certainty that they are one and the same - as evidenced by the cite that you asked for. I wouldn’t really know, since I can only read the abstract (hence my “As far as I can tell”). Talking about science - how far do you think you’d get in submitting a research paper if you admitted you’d only read the abstracts of all your citations… > [@](#): > > While the research paper itself is behind a paywall (sadly), the article clearly is using “sexual equality” in the way I describe. See the news articles reporting on the paper, which include this quote from the lead researcher (cited upthread): …or quoted The Guardian … > [@](#): > > Now, you may distrust the science - that’s fine, nothing should be accepted uncritically. I _don’t_ distrust the science. There’s nothing surprising about their findings. What I disagree with is that the situation they describe can be called “egalitarian” - "equitable, sure, “egalitarian”, not. And I disagree that any study of modern HGs can be said to say anything meaningful about pre-agricultural lifeways absent any other evidence. That, to me, is the biggest mistake any anthropologist today can make. Modern HGs are just that - modern. And not little micro-experiments of prehistoric life. Far from it. > [@](#): > > However, the point of this particular research isn’t to claim ancestral HGs were “the same”, bur a rather subtler one: that the model of HG societies they were working on is consistent with present-day observations. That’s fine, but your own claim was much broader and more like the former statement than the latter. You (and some anthropologists) go from a modern hierarchy of subsistence to a historical progress without real justification. ---
**Author:** ![psikeyhackr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/97f17d/32.png) [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2016, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-male-domination-worked-so-well/770424/90 "2016-11-07T19:39:42Z")
Organized barbarity can work until there is no place left to expand. Did it work well for the men who charging machine guns in WWI? Now we are close to the limits of the planet and not many people are going to Mars. So what will happen in the next 150 years? psik ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-male-domination-worked-so-well/770424/91 "2016-11-08T15:04:48Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > That’s irrelevant. It _is_ so for the groups in your cite (and also for every HG tribe I’ve ever studied up on). So _there_ may be mythical HG tribes where the men hunt but the women have a magic veto over their hunting. Mythical ideal tribes aren’t my concern. Real ones are. And in real ones, division of labour necessitates inequality of at least opportunity - if women aren’t allowed to hunt, are socially excluded from that, or any, economic activity, then the word egalitarian \*can not \*apply.No, it’s a foundation of the strain of feminism I was taught that women’s rights are human rights. “Separate isn’t equal” applies just as much to “primitive” women as it does to any other excluded outgroup.I wouldn’t really know, since I can only read the abstract (hence my “As far as I can tell”). > > Talking about science - how far do you think you’d get in submitting a research paper if you admitted you’d only read the abstracts of all your citations… > …or quoted The Guardian …I _don’t_ distrust the science. There’s nothing surprising about their findings. What I disagree with is that the situation they describe can be called “egalitarian” - "equitable, sure, “egalitarian”, not. > > And I disagree that any study of modern HGs can be said to say anything meaningful about pre-agricultural lifeways absent any other evidence. That, to me, is the biggest mistake any anthropologist today can make. Modern HGs are just that - modern. And not little micro-experiments of prehistoric life. Far from it. > That’s fine, but your own claim was much broader and more like the former statement than the latter. You (and some anthropologists) go from a modern hierarchy of subsistence to a historical progress without real justification. Uh, I read the paper, when it first came out: I regularly read _Science_. That’s why I made the argument in the first place. I just can’t link to a free copy of it, which is hardly my fault. For some odd reason journals want to be paid. It is obvious you are using a completely different definition of “egalitarian”, one in which differences in occupation automatically = non-egalitarian _by definition_ (saying that equality of decision-making is “irrelevant” is a bit of a clue, as was claiming that equality of opportunity in the modern West translates throughout social evolution). If you wish to replace “egalitarian” with “equitable”, have at it. It makes zero difference to the actual substance of the argument which term one uses. Why you bothered to ask me what my definition was, if you are going to ignore it when it is provided, is a bit of a mystery. Again, you are missing the nature of the argument: that the theory, based on modeling, is at least _consistent_ with modern evidence: it is “not disproven”, which isn’t of course the same thing as “proven”. Claiming that modern HGs have _nothing_ to teach us about HG in general is as mistaken as the straw-man anthropologists you condemn. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-male-domination-worked-so-well/770424/92 "2016-11-08T16:04:52Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > It’s worked well? The planet hasn’t crashed into the sun, has it? Q. E. D. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-male-domination-worked-so-well/770424/93 "2016-11-08T16:52:12Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Uh, I read the paper, when it first came out: I regularly read _Science_. That’s why I made the argument in the first place. I just can’t link to a free copy of it, which is hardly my fault. For some odd reason journals want to be paid. It’s [not that hard to find](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark_Dyble/publication/276356710_Human_behavior_Sex_equality_can_explain_the_unique_social_structure_of_hunter-gatherer_bands/links/5560c1e208ae6f4dcc93c144.pdf), actually. And I was right, they’re not talking about overall social egalitarianism, at all. They’re specifically using the term just to refer to equality of choice in location. > [@](#): > > It is obvious you are using a completely different definition of “egalitarian”, one in which differences in occupation automatically = non-egalitarian _by definition_ Well, yes. I’m using the standard definition you’d find in most any dictionary, viz. “believing in or based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve **equal rights and opportunities**.” Sex-based division of labour \*automatically \*cuts off equality of opportunity. Not equality of _outcome_. Not _equitable_ political power. But equality of opportunity. > [@](#): > > If you wish to replace “egalitarian” with “equitable”, have at it. It makes zero difference to the actual substance of the argument which term one uses. Yes, it does. > [@](#): > > Why you bothered to ask me what my definition was, if you are going to ignore it when it is provided, is a bit of a mystery. I’m not ignoring it, I’m arguing against your use of it in a more general sense… > [@](#): > > Again, you are missing the nature of the argument: that the theory, based on modeling, is at least _consistent_ with modern evidence: it is “not disproven”, which isn’t of course the same thing as “proven”. Claiming that modern HGs have _nothing_ to teach us about HG in general is as mistaken as the straw-man anthropologists you condemn. Nothing “absent any other evidence”. ---
**Author:** ![T.M](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ad7895/32.png) [@T.M](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T.M)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-male-domination-worked-so-well/770424/94 "2016-11-08T16:58:34Z")
A very simple answer to a very simple Question, the MALE is the superior gender and woman keep stopping work to have babies and then they want time off when their little darling has a snivel, of course MEN are superior ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2016, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-male-domination-worked-so-well/770424/95 "2016-11-08T17:04:26Z")
See how well its working so far? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-has-male-domination-worked-so-well/770424.md?page=4)