Is There Anything Good About Men? (by: Roy F. Baumeister)

[Boston_Chemist]

http://www.denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

Excerpts:

"The mistake in that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there too. Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Who’s homeless? Again, mostly men. Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs? US Department of Labor statistics report that 93% of the people killed on the job are men. Likewise, who gets killed in battle? Even in today’s American army, which has made much of integrating the sexes and putting women into combat, the risks aren’t equal. This year we passed the milestone of 3,000 deaths in Iraq, and of those, 2,938 were men, 62 were women."
.....
"...He said there were more men at the top levels of ability. That could still be true despite the average being the same — if there are also more men at the bottom of the distribution, more really stupid men than women. During the controversy about his remarks, I didn’t see anybody raise this question, but the data are there, indeed abundant, and they are indisputable. There are more males than females with really low IQs. Indeed, the pattern with mental retardation is the same as with genius, namely that as you go from mild to medium to extreme, the preponderance of males gets bigger. "
.....

There is quite a bit in that essay, much of it fascinating and polemical - too bad it lacks any citations at the end, as it would be good to try and verify his statements where possible. I am curious as to what the group thinks about this theme.

[Warren DeMontague]

2. We have nipples!

Thereby offering two poky little refutations to intelligent design supporters, right there on our chests.

[Boston_Chemist]

5. Intelligent design is nonsense. nt

[bemildred]

3. So, if I understand this right, if I want want lots of descendents,

I want mostly daughters?

And the selective pressures on men are not merely different, but much stronger?

[Boston_Chemist]

4. I think that was one of the main points of this article.

As I said: I really wish the author had included citations for the claims. They would be quite illuminating. On the other hand, it isn't like Roy Baumeister is a nobody - he's one of the bigger names in his field.

[bemildred]

6. Well, I've always wanted as many daughters as I could get.

But I quite agree, while the claims made seem "reasonable" to me, they should not be accepted as true without a good deal better support.

[Boston_Chemist]

7. It will stimulate discussion, actually. And that is a good thing.

This article fits squarely into what is known as "Third Wave Feminism," where advocacy for both sexes is accomplished. It will also go a long way towards getting rid of the negative connotations that Feminism has acquired in the last few decades.

I recently got into a nice discussion with a female lawyer friend about this. She had a few objections to the article, but I think they stemmed mostly from various misinterpretations and knee-jerk reactions. And, to be honest, I was a bit worried about posting it on DU, as I feared that it would not be received well.

[bemildred]

8. Yes, I think De Beauvoir had it right 60 years ago.

We are all "brothers", men and women both. The whole "battle of the sexes" deal is dumb and pernicious. Not unlike racism and other types of stereotyping now out of fashion. There are differences, large and important ones, but they ought to serve as the basis for respect, understanding, and cooperation.

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. Kicking this excellent essay.

Aggression and helping are in some ways opposites, so the converging pattern is quite meaningful. Women both help and aggress in the intimate sphere of close relationships, because that’s what they care about. In contrast, men care (also) about the broader network of shallower relationships, and so they are plenty helpful and aggressive there.

The same two-spheres conclusion is supported in plenty of other places. Playground observation studies find that girls pair off and play one-on-one with the same playmate for the full hour. Boys will either play one-on-one with a series of different playmates or with a larger group. Girls want the one-to-one relationship, whereas boys are drawn to bigger groups or networks.

When two girls are playing together and the researchers bring in a third one, the two girls resist letting her join. But two boys will let a third boy join their game. My point is that girls want the one-on-one connection, so adding a third person spoils the time for them, but it doesn’t spoil it for the boys.

The conclusion is that men and women are both social but in different ways. Women specialize in the narrow sphere of intimate relationships. Men specialize in the larger group. If you make a list of activities that are done in large groups, you are likely to have a list of things that men do and enjoy more than women: team sports, politics, large corporations, economic networks, and so forth.