“Is There Anything Good About Men?”

Roy Baumeister is one of the most respected social psychological researchers alive today, so when I saw that he had given a talk with the title of this post, I had to read it. It has given me much to think about, and of course I’m going to share.

Baumeister starts by noting the obvious: there is a strong thread of man-bashing in the world (especially in academia). But the talk isn’t just a balance-the-scales exercise; it’s a thoughtful look at why various gender differences might be the way they are, from an evolutionary perspective, and whether the things that make men men might not play an important part in the success of cultures (the answer is yes, if you want to skip the rest of this post).

Dr. B suggests that culture is a higher-level strategy developed for improving our odds of surviving. Thus, whatever works for a culture must also help its members reproduce… at least on average (it’s evolution, yo). The history of gender then shifts from men versus women to men and women in groups versus other groups, and against the harsh realities of the physical world. Many gender differences — biological, social, cultural, psychological — can be seen as adaptations resulting from this struggle.

So, how does culture use (exploit) men to perpetuate itself? Baumeister’s answers are embedded in a “radical theory of gender equality. Men and women may be different, but each advantage may be linked to a disadvantage.” This leads to some very thought-provoking evidence and implications, many of which I’m about to summarize (warning: lots of content after the cut):

Can’t versus Won’t

Men and women have roughly equal average abilities in many areas, yet their average performance is different, due to motivational differences. For example, men don’t have any greater sexual ability, but their motivation is certainly higher (insert jokes here). In the workplace, men account for the majority of workaholics, even when their skills are no greater than women’s. On tests of creativity, men and women score about the same; but men dominate in some areas, such as musical improvisation. These facts suggest a biological difference in the motivational systems of men vs. women, in certain areas.

Better and Worse

Men and women have roughly the same average IQs, yet men continue to dominate in high-status fields. Aside from gender discrimination, there is also the possibility that there are simply more extremely intelligent men than women¹. This is not a popular thing to suggest, data or no, and at least one University administrator has lost his job for thinking it out loud. “The Patriarchy” is one possible explanation for the difference, but there are also far more men than women on the very low end of the intelligence spectrum (i.e., mentally retarded individuals). Is that also a conspiracy of the patriarchy? Again, biology, genes, and evolution are implicated.

Risk and Reward

Men are overrepresented in high-paying, high-status jobs. This fact is sometimes taken to wholly implicate gender bias. However, men dominate most risky occupations and activities, and most high-status jobs involve high risk as well. CEOs, soldiers, professional athletes, adventurers, etc. are predominantly male, and reap both the rewards and bitter failures of high-risk endeavors. Arguing that the rewards of successful male gambles should be equally shared with women ignores the much greater percentage of men who gambled and failed, with nobody arguing that their losses should be evenly distributed.

Culture = Tradeoffs

Cultures offer balances of costs and rewards for individuals. It would make no sense for nature to make one gender clearly “better” across the board than another. But it does make sense for nature to specialize. One tradeoff is that high-risk activities offer higher rewards than low-risk activities, and men seem to be made to undertake them, resulting in higher male mortality but also some men (and far more than women) who “strike it big.” Women generally prefer lower levels of risk, and enjoy a higher survival rate, but also less frequently receive fame, fortune, or political power. Thus, there are more male than female CEOs, but also more male homeless people, drug addicts, and prisoners.

Statistical Shenanigans

If we focus on the higher end of male and female distributions of worldly success and money, it looks like men are better than women. If we focus on the lower end, however, we might conclude that women are better than men. As and Bs are now the average grade in college, and women have higher GPAs than men. This might be because the really high-achieving males can’t balance out the really low achievers dragging the male average down (the few very high-achieving males are unable to get A+++++s in their classes to compensate for their brothers’ Ds and Fs). With salaries it’s reversed; All the men on skid  row cannot balance out the CEOs making millions, because zero is the lowest salary. Women have statistically higher average grades, but lower average salaries.

We are descended from average women and extreme men

What percentage of our ancestors were women? No, not 50%. Throughout history, about 80% of women but only 40% of men have reproduced, so each of us is descended from twice as many women as men. Here, too, men are among the biggest losers and the biggest winners. Most men, historically, have not had children, but some of those who did have had a ridiculously high number of them (think Genghis Khan). They were probably risk-takers.

Basic Reproductive Math

Cultures value women’s reproductive abilities, and rightly so. Men, individually, are a lot more expendable, reproductively speaking. Since they are also at high risk to never reproduce, men have evolved a “take any sex you can get” tendency (including, I suggest, the possibility of rape).  One good reproductive tactic for men is to distinguish themselves in the eyes of their culture (get rich, conquer someone, etc.). This leads Baumeister to… “perhaps nature designed women to seek to be lovable, whereas men were designed to strive, mostly unsuccessfully, for greatness.”

Different Social specializations

Women are generally more social when deep, personal relationships are concerned. But men are more likely to have larger, more shallow social networks. This trend is reflected in aggression and helping behaviors. Women are more prone than men to both aggress (!) and provide self-sacrificing help, in intimate relationships. Men are more likely to be both aggressive and helpful to individuals in the broad social world outside close relationships. “Women specialize in the narrow sphere of intimate relationships. Men specialize in the larger group.”

Organizations and Gender

Men’s broad/shallow social pattern works well in traditionally male organizations (corporations, governments, etc.), as does their reduced tendency to show emotion, their higher competitiveness, their higher preference for innovation, their focus on equity (versus equality), etc. But in smaller, more intimate groups (families, close friends), women’s social tendencies are more adaptive and helpful.

Male Strategies Disproportionately Shape Culture

Culture enjoys economies of scale. As human societies get larger, we’re surviving and reproducing more and more effectively. These large groups, however, are more friendly to men’s evolved propensities than women’s. This is because “…culture mainly arose in the types of social relationships favored by men… A one-on-one close relationship can do a little in terms of division of labor and sharing information, but a 20-person group can do much more.” We need the close relationships for survival, but not the larger, shallower networks. The latter, however, grow and perpetuate themselves very well.

To wrap up, I’ll quote from Baumeister’s conclusions:

“Hence religion, literature, art, science, technology, military action, trade and economic marketplaces, political organization, medicine — these all mainly emerged from the men’s sphere…

“The women’s sphere… was organized on the basis of… close, intimate, supportive one-on-one relationships…  Meanwhile the men favored the larger networks of shallower relationships. These are less satisfying and nurturing and so forth, but they do form a more fertile basis for the emergence of culture.

“Women were doing what was vital for the survival of the species… 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 — but mainly in the men’s sphere.

“Thus, the reason for the emergence of gender inequality… came from the fact that wealth, knowledge, and power were created in the men’s sphere. This is what pushed the men’s sphere ahead. Not oppression.”

Baumeister offers the example of childbirth. For a long time, women were in charge of this, and they did amazingly well. They kept us all alive and thriving. As soon as men got involved, however, mortality rates dropped radically. Men’s broad, shallow social networks (e.g., international medical societies) and focus on innovation and competition produced benefits that the small, intimate relationships and noncompetitive community focus had not discovered for thousands of years.

He concludes that men are good for several things (i.e., this is what cultures use men for):

• “Culture relies on men to create the large social structures that comprise it” (and, largely, this is what men do).
• “Men create the kind of social networks where individuals are replaceable and expendable.” These networks are pretty important for cultures to survive and thrive.
• Men are used to “cope with systems where there is a shortage of respect and you have to work hard to get some.” Systems like business, politics, sports, etc.
• The male sex drive is harnessed to motivate men (and women, indirectly) for cultural ends, such as economic exchange or selfless behaviors.
• Men are used for culturally symbolic reasons more than women (both positively and negatively).

This theory will not be anybody’s final word in gender roles, but it is deeply appealing to me. First, it offers a plausible (partial?) account of the differences and inequalities that exist between genders, rooted in the best contemporary science. Second, it neatly avoids the temptation to lay some kind of ultimate blame on one gender (i.e., mine). Third, it is descriptive, not prescriptive. It doesn’t tell us what we should do; it just offers a possible explanation for why things are as they are.

The theory (I’ll keep calling it that) is not irrelevant to what we should do, however; far from it. It is the most satisfying implementation I have yet seen of an idea that has been kicked around in various circles for millennia: Men and women are different but valuable. Solutions to gender problems will involve cooperation, support for our weaknesses, and respect for our separate strengths, rather than intergender competition for resources.

Baumeister’s theory is massively more believable, given our current level of scientific knowledge, than many alternatives. It is not a “fair” or “balanced” theory, because evolution cares nothing for fairness; only utility. The realm of moralization is left wide open for us to address with our philosophies, mores, scruples, and justice (and we must continue to do exactly that).

Now, a final nifty quote:

“The basic social insecurity of manhood is stressful for the men, and it is hardly surprising that so many men crack up or do evil or heroic things or die younger than women. But that insecurity is useful and productive for the culture, the system.

“Again, I’m not saying it’s right, or fair, or proper. But it has worked. The cultures that have succeeded have used this formula, and that is one reason that they have succeeded instead of their rivals.”

1. I think there is less empirical support for this than there was when Baumeister wrote this talk [↩]