> Male genetics are just more varied. The average of mens lives, by rule, will therefore be worse for most and great for a few. I don't understand how this fol

> Male genetics are just more varied. The average of mens lives, by rule, will therefore be worse for most and great for a few. I don't understand how this follows. If we accept for the sake of argument that men are more varied, then shouldn't that result in more men doing exceptionally badly or exceptionally well, but men and women doing the same on average? If the idea is that life is a winner-take-all game and everyone but the most intelligent/conscientious/charismatic loses, then that would mean that even more women than men would lose out, because they're supposedly more likely to be average than exceptional. It could be that men are playing a winner-take-all game and women aren't, but I don't understand how that corresponds with our present reality. It's true that men are capable of impregnating a lot of women at once, and that might have affected the evolutionary development of male psychology -- but in Western societies today most relationships are monogamous. So when we're talking about the happiness of present-day males, I don't understand how it would be the outcome of a winner-take-all game.