3 ms·

> 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

> 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.