4 ms·

This is simple. All you need to know is that men stand to gain more, genetically, by accumulating prestige and power. This is because there is no upper limit o

This is simple. All you need to know is that men stand to gain more, genetically, by accumulating prestige and power. This is because there is no upper limit on how many children a given male can sire, whereas women are fundamentally limited in how many children they can bear. This wikipedia page starkly illustrates this difference (it is a list of the most prolific men and women, by number of offspring): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_the_most_children https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_the_most_c... The most prolific woman is at 69 children. The most prolific men are in the hundreds to thousands. Also, most of the women on the list are not notable aside from having given birth to many children. But the men are almost all notable primarily for things other than having sired many children (the exception being a handful of sperm donors and fertility doctors). > women have universally faired worse in societies Have they? While they may not inhabit positions of power, women generally survive conflicts between clans, tribes, and nation states. Look to the genocide of the Yazidi at the hands of ISIS: the women are taken as sex slaves, which is terrible, but the men are all dead. This is the fundamental tradeoff between male and female (in humans): women have a narrower normal distribution and men have a wider one. So, women rarely do great, but they also die less often. A few men do incredibly well, but many more men than women die trying to climb the dominance hierarchy.

baron816 9y ago
> All you need to know is that men stand to gain more, genetically, by accumulating prestige and power. I've thought about this too (well, not the genetic part) and I think it's a viable theory. Women's romantic ambitions are not tied anywhere near as tightly to their career success as men's are. I think this is a major contributor to a lower life satisfaction in men, at least. I had some trouble phrasing the thing about women faring worse in societies. I didn't mean that their wellbeing is worse. I mean that they're disenfranchised and restricted from achieving positions of power.
- toasterlovin 9y ago
  > I think it's a viable theory I'm not a working evolutionary psychologist, but my understanding is that this is the most widely accepted theory for understanding this discrepancy in outcomes for men and women. If you're not already familiar with evolutionary psychology, I highly recommend taking a look. IMO, it is the best lens through which to understand human behavior. > they're disenfranchised and restricted from achieving positions of power I think causation runs along two paths. The first is, as you mention, that women are restricted and disenfranchised. But I wouldn't underestimate the degree to which women are evolved to simply not seek power and prestige. Seeking power is costly. It takes a lot of time and effort and, when things don't go well, you often end up dead (assassinations, coups, etc.). Whenever something is costly, it needs to have a marked offsetting benefit for it to be evolved for. Since women stand to gain less than men do by accumulating power, evolutionary theory predicts that they should be proportionately less motivated to do so.

baron816 9y ago

> All you need to know is that men stand to gain more, genetically, by accumulating prestige and power. I've thought about this too (well, not the genetic part) and I think it's a viable theory. Women's romantic ambitions are not tied anywhere near as tightly to their career success as men's are. I think this is a major contributor to a lower life satisfaction in men, at least. I had some trouble phrasing the thing about women faring worse in societies. I didn't mean that their wellbeing is worse. I mean that they're disenfranchised and restricted from achieving positions of power.

toasterlovin 9y ago
> I think it's a viable theory I'm not a working evolutionary psychologist, but my understanding is that this is the most widely accepted theory for understanding this discrepancy in outcomes for men and women. If you're not already familiar with evolutionary psychology, I highly recommend taking a look. IMO, it is the best lens through which to understand human behavior. > they're disenfranchised and restricted from achieving positions of power I think causation runs along two paths. The first is, as you mention, that women are restricted and disenfranchised. But I wouldn't underestimate the degree to which women are evolved to simply not seek power and prestige. Seeking power is costly. It takes a lot of time and effort and, when things don't go well, you often end up dead (assassinations, coups, etc.). Whenever something is costly, it needs to have a marked offsetting benefit for it to be evolved for. Since women stand to gain less than men do by accumulating power, evolutionary theory predicts that they should be proportionately less motivated to do so.