4 ms·

Historically, the reason men reap the lion share’s of power and resources is because we take the risks. We take life threatening risks because compared to women

Historically, the reason men reap the lion share’s of power and resources is because we take the risks. We take life threatening risks because compared to women, we are expendable. Not sure what’s happening now assuming we are supposedly working towards equality (which should include both the good and the bad eg women should be able to get drafted just like men and the custody of children should not predominantly favor women) and the “lean in” movement isn’t just a fad

lotsofpulp 4y ago
> Historically, the reason men reap the lion share’s of power and resources is because we take the risks. I would have thought it had something to do with almost all men being able to physically overpower almost all women. Which might also guide how which risks women are willing to take compared to men.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  What point are you making?
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    In nature, might makes right. It makes sense to me that men reap the “lion’s share of power and resources” simply because they can take them from women, not because of men taking more risks (which I am not sure how one can make that statement anyway since men and women are exposed to very different risks that are not easily comparable in magnitude).
    - DangitBobby 4y ago
      I think it's fair to say that for whatever reason (biological, cultural, or otherwise) men are exposed to greater risk since they die at a higher rate for every age group (just based on the graph in the article).
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        That is just mortality risk. There are other myriad other risks in life that I would not classify as being a "lesser" risk, such as the risk of having to live your whole life being abused by a spouse.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - danwills 4y ago
      I've read that males have a different risk to reward ratio (not in every species but in many, including humans) especially in terms of reproduction. One male can in-theory have many more offspring in the same time period than one female, and any gene encouraging that kind of behaviour in the past would probably have been naturally-selected-for amongst our ancestors. Of course the welfare of the offspring will likely be lower in that case but evolution still seems to have still left human males with remnants of a strategy of reproductive risk-taking.
  - chaostheory 4y ago
    Men are stronger and inherently more violent then women. We commit most of the crime especially violent crime. Brutal but it helps with resource and power accumulation
    - CapstanRoller 4y ago
      >inherently more violent then women This isn't true. Women just express violence in different ways (many of which are not seen as typically 'violent' because the benchmark is based on the sort of violence men do). Capacity & propensity for violence isn't an exclusively masculine trait, but rather a core human trait.
      - chaostheory 4y ago
        > Women just express violence in different ways Can you expand on this because it sounds completely baseless > Capacity & propensity for violence isn't an exclusively masculine trait, but rather a core human trait While committing violence isn't exclusive to males, males are statistically and historically much more prone to violence than females regardless of culture or race. There's plenty of data to back this up.
        CapstanRoller 4y ago
        The ways in which we classify violence is itself often sexist and reinforces toxic gender stereotypes. Many of the violent things women do are normalized in society because they're not seen as 'real' violence and diminished solely by virtue of having been committed by a woman (e.g. intimate partner violence against men in heterosexual relationships, intimate partner violence against women in lesbian relationships, or child abuse especially against girls and & gender-conforming children), often seen as not 'worthy' of the same types of classification or intervention as violence perpetrated by men. This is the flip side of the stereotypes we typically associate with misogyny, and a form of benevolent sexism[0]: "women are weak" -> "women can't be violent" -> "women can't be soldiers" -> "women can't be abusers or criminals". As for psychological violence, the subreddit /r/RaisedByNarcissists is full of women talking about living with the aftermath of abusive mothers. If one believes in "the radical notion that women are people" then it stands to reason women can fully embody the totality of the human experience, which includes a certain capacity and propensity for violence. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism
- chaostheory 4y ago
  It’s a mix of both. Committing violence tends to be a life threatening risk
russdill 4y ago
Seriously? Please, tell me, historically, what's been the maternal mortality rate among men?
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  Is maternal mortality the only way people die?
- UncleEntity 4y ago
  Probably roughly equal to the mortality rate of prostrate cancer in women I’d imagine.
  - orwin 4y ago
    But you don't die from prostate cancer at 12/14. Ten percent mortality rate during you first labor mean a lot of young girl didn't make it, historically.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  Violence still killed a lot more men than childbirth killed women. Otherwise, the male mortality rate wouldn’t be historically higher than the female mortality rate

lotsofpulp 4y ago

> Historically, the reason men reap the lion share’s of power and resources is because we take the risks. I would have thought it had something to do with almost all men being able to physically overpower almost all women. Which might also guide how which risks women are willing to take compared to men.

DangitBobby 4y ago
What point are you making?
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  In nature, might makes right. It makes sense to me that men reap the “lion’s share of power and resources” simply because they can take them from women, not because of men taking more risks (which I am not sure how one can make that statement anyway since men and women are exposed to very different risks that are not easily comparable in magnitude).
  - DangitBobby 4y ago
    I think it's fair to say that for whatever reason (biological, cultural, or otherwise) men are exposed to greater risk since they die at a higher rate for every age group (just based on the graph in the article).
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      That is just mortality risk. There are other myriad other risks in life that I would not classify as being a "lesser" risk, such as the risk of having to live your whole life being abused by a spouse.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - danwills 4y ago
    I've read that males have a different risk to reward ratio (not in every species but in many, including humans) especially in terms of reproduction. One male can in-theory have many more offspring in the same time period than one female, and any gene encouraging that kind of behaviour in the past would probably have been naturally-selected-for amongst our ancestors. Of course the welfare of the offspring will likely be lower in that case but evolution still seems to have still left human males with remnants of a strategy of reproductive risk-taking.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  Men are stronger and inherently more violent then women. We commit most of the crime especially violent crime. Brutal but it helps with resource and power accumulation
  - CapstanRoller 4y ago
    >inherently more violent then women This isn't true. Women just express violence in different ways (many of which are not seen as typically 'violent' because the benchmark is based on the sort of violence men do). Capacity & propensity for violence isn't an exclusively masculine trait, but rather a core human trait.
    - chaostheory 4y ago
      > Women just express violence in different ways Can you expand on this because it sounds completely baseless > Capacity & propensity for violence isn't an exclusively masculine trait, but rather a core human trait While committing violence isn't exclusive to males, males are statistically and historically much more prone to violence than females regardless of culture or race. There's plenty of data to back this up.
      - CapstanRoller 4y ago
        The ways in which we classify violence is itself often sexist and reinforces toxic gender stereotypes. Many of the violent things women do are normalized in society because they're not seen as 'real' violence and diminished solely by virtue of having been committed by a woman (e.g. intimate partner violence against men in heterosexual relationships, intimate partner violence against women in lesbian relationships, or child abuse especially against girls and & gender-conforming children), often seen as not 'worthy' of the same types of classification or intervention as violence perpetrated by men. This is the flip side of the stereotypes we typically associate with misogyny, and a form of benevolent sexism[0]: "women are weak" -> "women can't be violent" -> "women can't be soldiers" -> "women can't be abusers or criminals". As for psychological violence, the subreddit /r/RaisedByNarcissists is full of women talking about living with the aftermath of abusive mothers. If one believes in "the radical notion that women are people" then it stands to reason women can fully embody the totality of the human experience, which includes a certain capacity and propensity for violence. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism
chaostheory 4y ago
It’s a mix of both. Committing violence tends to be a life threatening risk

russdill 4y ago

Seriously? Please, tell me, historically, what's been the maternal mortality rate among men?

DangitBobby 4y ago
Is maternal mortality the only way people die?
UncleEntity 4y ago
Probably roughly equal to the mortality rate of prostrate cancer in women I’d imagine.
- orwin 4y ago
  But you don't die from prostate cancer at 12/14. Ten percent mortality rate during you first labor mean a lot of young girl didn't make it, historically.
chaostheory 4y ago
Violence still killed a lot more men than childbirth killed women. Otherwise, the male mortality rate wouldn’t be historically higher than the female mortality rate