"Male Privilege"
Spencer Stone, hero of attempted terror attack on French train, stabbed in Sacramento while defending a friend.
Evolutionary psychologists Andreas Wilke, John M. C. Hutchinson, Peter M. Todd, and Daniel J. Kruger on male risk-taking and how men, disproportionately, are the risk-takers of our species:
Human risk taking shows some striking sex differences, which, when viewed in the framework of evolutionary theory, raises the possibility that it is a sexually selected trait. Males in their teens and twenties not only are more prone than females of the same age to take risks of many different kinds (e.g. extreme sports, driving cars or motorcycles too fast, binge drinking, having unprotected sex, etc.), but also suffer from much higher associated mortality rates (Byrnes, Miller, and Schafer, 1999; Kruger and Nesse, 2004). Many of these risks not only involve an increased variance in payoff (a standard definition of risk), but also often lead to a lower mean payoff than not taking the risk.Sexual selection can provide a twofold rationale for why males show these risky behaviors, especially at ages of high fertility. First, the variance and skew in male mating success may favor risk taking: High potential gains (e.g. in resources promoting partner acquisition) outweigh the high risks (e.g. Daly and Wilson, 1988, chapter 8). Second, and the argument that this paper tests, males may take risks as a form of advertisement of their quality to both females and rival males. The argument for why risk taking might be an honest indicator of quality follows the logic of the handicap principle (Zahavi, 1975; Grafen, 1990): If risky behaviors are less of a danger to a high-quality male than to a low-quality male, high-quality males can afford to take such risks more often, and thus rivals and potential mates should use risk taking as a cue to quality.
Fight. Flight. Freeze. Get Laid.
Dave B at October 8, 2015 12:21 PM
Robert Franklin recently wrote (about Andrew Moravcsik, with whom he disagrees):
"...Our success as a species stems in large part from our sex roles that required men to take the risks, to fight and die to protect females and children. The practicalities of human procreation mean that, for the species to survive, men are the disposable sex and women aren’t...
"...That notion of perpetual peace, prosperity and security is certainly a happy one. I hope it’s correct. But the entire course of human history tells us it’s not. History is nothing if not about perpetual change. Empires rise and fall, peace is replaced by war, plenty varies with famine. Should the current order fall disastrously to pieces, human beings will revert to our ancient sex roles fast enough to make your head spin. Here’s hoping today’s men and women remember them."
I have to say, I don't really follow. Seems to me that since ancient times, women (Boadicea, for one) have been pressured to do all sorts of dangerous things in wartime, even if it was "just" spying. At the very least, they were expected to get their hands dirty in ways they never expected. E.g., the teenage Princess Elizabeth was an auto mechanic in WWII - granted, she wasn't really pushed into that job, IIRC - she chose it.
lenona at October 8, 2015 12:40 PM
Spencer Stone seems like the kind of friend who has your back. That's the best kind of friend.
charles at October 8, 2015 12:45 PM
Women don't get guys through risk-taking. A rare woman doing some risky thing for the group doesn't change how males, predominantly, are the risk-takers of the species.
"Eggs are expensive," as the ev psych saying goes.
Amy Alkon at October 8, 2015 12:49 PM
How do you know it's rare? Just because you don't typically hear about Mary Redmond (from Philadelphia) whenever the American Revolution gets talked about doesn't prove that the women of her time weren't doing all sorts of dangerous work without getting much credit for it. What else is new?
More on her:
http://www.poetry-archive.com/c/the_little_black_eyed_rebel.html
lenona at October 8, 2015 1:21 PM
To clarify: I was talking about WARTIMES, in particular. Granted, you don't see much of that risk taking in peacetime.
lenona at October 8, 2015 1:22 PM
"Eggs are expensive," as the ev psych saying goes.
Indeed. It takes about 15 years to go from a fetus to sexual maturity in a straight-up survival mode scenario and much energy and resources must be expended on that child.
In those scenarios, men are expendable and fertile women valuable. The whole motivation of the bad guy in Mad Max: Fury Road is to recover his fecund females, in particular the one who is actually pregnant.
And since we're in "peacetime" of sorts, we can turn to entertainment to get an idea of what's what. Here's a list of the UFC lineup from Wikipedia. They tally 57 women fighters in two weight classes: straw (115 lbs) and bantam (135 lb) weights.
There are 111 men in the welter weight (170 lbs) alone, and ballpark 400 men across all weights. So, yes, rare. One doesn't expect to die in a UFC match, as brutal as they can be.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 8, 2015 2:04 PM
Sorry Lenona. One or two exceptions don't change a general trend.
Yes there is currently a queen of England. But that is not historically common and only was considered possible when being the ruler was no longer a dangerous occupation. The same is true for society in general. As it becomes safer more job opportunities are available. Even your example of women in WW2 shows the same trend. Yes women became riveters and machinists and took up all kinds of new occupations. But that was still safer than getting shot at in the front lines. Safety is relative.
Ben at October 8, 2015 5:13 PM
Maybe the risk/reward factor is even easier and more short-term. Anyone who's done something risky and got through it unscathed (or with only a bump or bruise) feels an elation and/or giddiness that is amazing. There's nothing like turning to others and practically yelling "can you believe we just f*****g did that? We out of control, baby, out of goddamm control." People do a lot of things for the immediate reinforcement/reward.
David Crawford at October 8, 2015 5:31 PM
As Amy says, the existence of outliers doesn't invalidate the average. There were about 3,000 Allied fatalities on D-Day. I'm almost certain that every one of them was male.
Cousin Dave at October 8, 2015 6:42 PM
Giving birth--or trying to--is the ultimate risk-taking behavior, especially if the woman is surrounded by her husband's kin. So, I don't believe men are proportionally greater risk takers, whatever the conventional literature might say. Jude Hammerle
Jude Hammerle at October 8, 2015 7:16 PM
They really were doing all sorts of dangerous things without getting credit for it. They were bearing children, which, back then was one of the most dangerous things you could do.
Conan the Grammarian at October 8, 2015 7:28 PM
Does it count as "risk" when your judgment is...you're screwed either way but you have to go ahead with it? "risk" implies a possibility of survival.
What if it's, "While he's tied up with me killing me, my buddy will get him."?
That having been said, it's traditional wisdom--possibly supported by an entirely superfluous study-- that the most dangerous thing in the world for a fourteen-year old boy is a fourteen-year old girl watching.
Richard Aubrey at October 8, 2015 8:17 PM
Does it count as "risk" when your judgment is...you're screwed either way but you have to go ahead with it? "risk" implies a possibility of survival.
What if it's, "While he's tied up with me killing me, my buddy will get him."?
That having been said, it's traditional wisdom--possibly supported by an entirely superfluous study-- that the most dangerous thing in the world for a fourteen-year old boy is a fourteen-year old girl watching.
Richard Aubrey at October 8, 2015 8:17 PM
faint heart never won fair maiden
NicoleK at October 9, 2015 12:42 AM
"faint heart never won fair maiden"
cuz chicks dig reckless jerks
bkmale at October 9, 2015 7:33 AM
lenona,
"I have to say, I don't really follow. Seems to me that since ancient times, women (Boadicea, for one) have been pressured to do all sorts of dangerous things in wartime, even if it was "just" spying"
Okay, so when was the last time you heard a woman called a pussy because she wouldn't risk her life to save some man she didn't know? A little boy grows up with this kind of enforcement, knowing that when he's a man that some man-hater woman will call his gender into question for failing to sacrifice himself for a woman. You didn't.
Interesting that you brought up Boudica, in a country where Emmeline Pankhurst later went around handing out white feathers to shame teenaged boys into enlisting for a war that her cowardly cunt ass would never, ever be called to fight in.
Jim at October 9, 2015 9:32 AM
All I was saying was, contrary to what Franklin seemed to be saying, whenever things get really scary on one's home turf, whether due to enemy invasions, random terrorist activity or the Great Depression, women don't get to "revert to...ancient sex roles"; they're pretty much forced into doing any important work they're physically capable of doing so they won't be seen as helpless leeches, even if they never dreamed of doing "that kind" of dirty work. If they don't have small children to look after, that pressure goes up even more. How many, say, childfree women with jobs do you know who would suddenly get a hankering to quit their jobs and become housewives should one of the above crises hit? That was my point.
And, for anyone who doesn't remember this: If you're caught as a spy in wartime, you get executed. Female spies have been around for centuries. Hardly a job that little girls were taught to dream of - but many of them had to do it anyway. (Even children often had to do it - and got executed. I heard of at least one such story from WWII.)
lenona at October 9, 2015 9:48 AM
Just saw your comment:
"Okay, so when was the last time you heard a woman called a pussy because she wouldn't risk her life to save some man she didn't know?"
Well, this isn't quite the same as what you're suggesting, but did you hear about THIS outrageous case in Pennsylvania, in 2005? I'd much rather be the woman in your example than this poor woman (Susan Newkirk):
http://www.post-gazette.com/frontpage/2005/10/05/Experts-disagree-with-jury-verdict-against-woman-in-boy-s-drowning/stories/200510050248
First paragraphs:
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | Wednesday, October 05, 2005 | Paula Reed Ward
Standing along the bank of a rain-swollen creek, Susan Newkirk watched as the 2-year-old boy tumbled in and was swept away.
She couldn't swim. Instead of diving into the raging waters after her friend's son, she yelled to his father for help.
The little boy died.
Certainly, her defense attorney argued during her trial for endangering the welfare of a child, his client had a moral obligation to try to save the boy. But, he continued, she did not have a legal one.
The jurors judging Ms. Newkirk's case obviously disagreed when they convicted her in July. Last week, the Hollidaysburg woman was sentenced to up to 18 months in jail.
But legal experts disagree with the verdict.
Instead, they say Ms. Newkirk did not have a "duty of care" to the little boy because she had no special relationship with him.
Her public defender, David Beyer, has vowed to appeal her conviction, arguing that she was not the child's parent or baby sitter, and therefore had no duty to protect him.
On Sept. 18, 2004 -- the day after Hurricane Ivan brought torrential downpours across Western Pennsylvania -- Ms. Newkirk, 41, joined her friend, Thomas E. Reffner, and his 2-year-old son, Hunter Delasko, to do repairs to a trailer in Claysburg, Blair County.
While Mr. Reffner worked on the trailer, Ms. Newkirk walked along South Poplar Run Creek.
She told police that Hunter had been with her and almost fell in. At that point, Ms. Newkirk took the boy back to his father, telling Mr. Reffner that Hunter should not be by the water.
A short time later, the toddler rejoined Ms. Newkirk...
(snip)
And, in a 2011 Bratfree thread, I said:
Does ANYONE understand why (the court) could jail her for this but (maybe) couldn't jail her for not simply keeping a sharper eye on the kid beforehand? After all, a nearby non-swimming STRANGER who hadn't seen the kid until AFTER the kid fell in wouldn't be blamed for not jumping in, so what's the difference?
lenona at October 9, 2015 10:10 AM
I'm afraid all you've shown Lenona is your issues with reading comprehension. A few exceptions don't invalidate 'striking sex differences' or 'men, disproportionately, are the risk-takers'. Neither claims 100% of risk takers are men.
And honestly I don't know what point you thought you were making by noting people don't quit their jobs during a crisis. Your other point that women do work they didn't before a crisis also has no significance.
Ben at October 9, 2015 10:15 AM
Hope this isn't a double post...
______________________________________
Okay, so when was the last time you heard a woman called a pussy because she wouldn't risk her life to save some man she didn't know?
______________________________________
Here's one, from 2005.
Not quite the same, but I'd MUCH rather be in the shoes of the woman you described than poor Susan Newkirk's...
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05278/582741.stm
First third:
Experts disagree with jury verdict against woman in boy's drowning
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
By Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Standing along the bank of a rain-swollen creek, Susan Newkirk watched as the 2-year-old boy tumbled in and was swept away.
She couldn't swim. Instead of diving into the raging waters after her friend's son, she yelled to his father for help.
The little boy died.
Certainly, her defense attorney argued during her trial for endangering the welfare of a child, his client had a moral obligation to try to save the boy. But, he continued, she did not have a legal one.
The jurors judging Ms. Newkirk's case obviously disagreed when they convicted her in July. Last week, the Hollidaysburg woman was sentenced to up to 18 months in jail.
But legal experts disagree with the verdict.
Instead, they say Ms. Newkirk did not have a "duty of care" to the little boy because she had no special relationship with him.
Her public defender, David Beyer, has vowed to appeal her conviction, arguing that she was not the child's parent or baby sitter, and therefore had no duty to protect him.
On Sept. 18, 2004 -- the day after Hurricane Ivan brought torrential downpours across Western Pennsylvania -- Ms. Newkirk, 41, joined her friend, Thomas E. Reffner, and his 2-year-old son, Hunter Delasko, to do repairs to a trailer in Claysburg, Blair County.
While Mr. Reffner worked on the trailer, Ms. Newkirk walked along South Poplar Run Creek.
She told police that Hunter had been with her and almost fell in. At that point, Ms. Newkirk took the boy back to his father, telling Mr. Reffner that Hunter should not be by the water.
A short time later, the toddler rejoined Ms. Newkirk...
(snip)
And, in a 2011 Bratfree thread, I wrote:
Does ANYONE understand why (the court) could jail her for this but (maybe) couldn't jail her for not simply keeping a sharper eye on the kid beforehand? After all, a nearby non-swimming STRANGER who hadn't seen the kid until AFTER the kid fell in wouldn't be blamed for not jumping in, so what's the difference?
lenona at October 9, 2015 10:36 AM
MUST I spell everything out? "Ancient sex roles," in many people's minds, are about women hiding away from the world and doing nothing other than watching over the kids. With a higher and higher female childfree (CF) population these days, that gives those women little excuse not to put themselves at risk when circumstances demand it.
Anyway, here's the 2011 Bratfree thread, if anyone likes. It includes a comment by an EMT. (Lifeguards from more than one country were appalled by the case and wrote in to defend her. No good, sadly.)
"Does anyone know the final outcome of this criminal case?"
http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,159716
Comments:
paragon schnitzophonic: "I wouldn't be surprised if everything related was purged because this sets a dangerous precedent. Like someone said in the Joe Paterno thread, a kid dies due to its parents' negligence, now bystanders can be punished for not immediately risking their lives to save the brat and the 'parents' get off scot-free because 'they suffered enough?' It takes the 'village' concept to ridiculous levels.
"One thing I read about the Newkirk case is that the idiot father who let his kid die took a f------ plea deal by testifying against Newkirk so he could get out of charges of gross negligence leading to death..."
Nemo: "Per the docket and briefs appended to a table decision on Westlaw, her conviction for child endangerment was affirmed on September 5, 2006, after her defense team tried to argue that the trial court erred in allowing Daddy Dearest not to testify. Gets tricky searching for court docs from Pennsylvania: the Keystone State is less than forthcoming when it comes to first names (or even first initials) for many defendants...."
navi8orgirl NLI: "Well, she would have long since done her time. And I bet she will never, ever date a single duh again (since it was her bf's kid, and he threw her under the bus by copping a plea for reckless endangerment and turning against her to save his own hide.)"
lenona at October 9, 2015 10:49 AM
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
Conan the Grammarian at October 9, 2015 3:34 PM
Ever seen the WWII comic Male Call? Miss Lace looks sexy, even while expressing righteous anger.
Check out "Support for Exposed Flank":
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1TUyhlhgTEo/Uw-PQ-BSQrI/AAAAAAAAGNc/M45Xk3wmaX4/s1600/35.jpg
KateC at October 9, 2015 7:29 PM
Male risk-takers:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/05/chris-mintz-defies-the-age-of-the-beta-male/
Amy Alkon at October 10, 2015 6:05 AM
That modern man piece from the NY Times (referenced in your article Amy) is pretty weird. Apparently modern men sit around crying while listening to the Wu-Tang Clan. I guess it's a good thing he doesn't have a gun or he would probably shoot himself. Or go on a rampage shooting Mnt Dew bottles at the supermarket.
Does it count for crying a lot because it's rag weed season? My eyes dry out and I have to hydrate them. But thank god I don't own a melon baller.
Ben at October 11, 2015 7:31 PM
Leave a comment