Why, Across Species, It's Rarely The Ladies In Charge
@Evolving_Moloch, an evolutionary anthro student at UC Davis, asks at TraditionsOf Conflict, "Where Are The Matriarchies?"
When looking across cultures, it's clear that societies with patriarchal social institutions are very common, so why don't we see comparable matriarchal institutions?In a recent article for Quillette, I tried to explain why sex differences in lethal violence are found seemingly everywhere, with men consistently committing more lethal violence than women do. I will not rehash the entire argument here, but will simply note that this pattern is entirely predictable in light of classic sexual selection theory. Males produce small, relatively mobile gametes while females produce large, less mobile gametes. Female mammals engage in more parental care than males, while male mammals have a greater potential reproductive output - as they are not constrained by gestation and lactation time - and can thus benefit more from competing directly for mates. Much violent conflict between men can be explained as competition for mating opportunities, or competition for status and/or resources that may net them more mating opportunities.
These very basic sex differences in reproductive strategies have important implications for political systems. In anthropologist Martin King Whyte's study on The Status of Women in Preindustrial Societies, he looked at sex differences in political participation across 93 nonindustrial societies of various subsistence types (hunter-gatherer, horticulturalist, pastoralist, agriculturalist) from all over the world. Whyte found that in 88% of societies, only men were political leaders, while in another 10% of societies some political leaders were women; however, men were more numerous and/or more powerful.
...While I think you can explain these cross-cultural sex differences in political participation in light of individual fitness interests, other scholars have sometimes attributed it to pressures related to intergroup competition throughout our evolutionary history. Primatologist Richard Wrangham and psychologist Joyce Benenson argue that, "male humans and chimpanzees were selected for effective use of male-male alliances as a result of their vulnerability to lethal intergroup violence."
Men evolved to be overt competitors -- and the ass-kickers of the species. Women tend to compete covertly -- often in ugly and backbiting ways. As I wrote in a column quoting Benenson:
As developmental psychologist Joyce Benenson writes in "Warriors and Worriers," an excellent book on evolved sex differences, "Throughout most of human history, men and women have specialized in different behaviors necessary to ensure the survival of their children to adulthood." Men evolved to be warriors, physically and psychologically prepared to do battle in a way women are not. Most men have far more muscle mass and physical strength than women and far more of the hormone of aggression, testosterone. Even very young boys show a love (not shared by girls) of play fighting, of having an "enemy" to battle, and of weaponry -- to the point where Benenson finds it common for boys in preschool who lack toy guns to shoot "bullets" out of a doll's head.In addition to women being physically weaker, research finds that they are more fearful than men -- from infancy on -- and rarely engage in physical fighting. This makes sense, Benenson points out, as physical injury would jeopardize a woman's ability to have children or to survive to protect the ones she's already had. So women evolved to prefer men who would protect them and their children -- a preference that is still with us today. (Our genes are clueless about the women's movement and the fact that a woman can defend herself just fine by using a pink Glock with a Hello Kitty slide cover plate.)
Sorry, beta boys. It's 2018, and you're still screwed.
Most people find someone and marry. Even beta males.
NicoleK at March 19, 2018 7:44 AM
Unfortunately in today's social environment stating facts that there are differences between men and women is considered sexist hate speech. I fear for factual research in this area in the future.
Jay at March 19, 2018 7:58 AM
Asked to picture a leader, most draw a man -
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/16/health/women-leadership-workplace.html
Snoopy at March 19, 2018 8:38 AM
"Most people find someone and marry. Even beta males."
True, but they often get raped in a bitter divorce a few years later.
bkmale at March 19, 2018 8:56 AM
Makes one wonder if the beta boys are going to go with the Jacana bird breeding strategy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_jacana
It makes no sense being an aggressive female in a monogamous relationship with a pussywhipped man, but if you have a mini-harem with three or four of them..
Sixclaws at March 19, 2018 9:22 AM
Jay's comment got me to thinking...
if there is no difference between men and women, and that gender is a social construct, how does it follow that having more women in positions of power and leadership automatically translate into a more peaceful and happy world?
Ok, fine, I denounce myself and will report to the gulag.
I R A Darth Aggie at March 19, 2018 9:43 AM
Jay's comment got IRA thinking, and IRA's comment got me thinking...
...about a corporate board room. The CEO is possessed by a brilliant idea, and points to three male underlings: "Jenkins, Jones, and MacGillicuddy! You three identify as women, and we'll be the most gender-diverse boardroom in North America! Got it?"
"But sir," moaned Jenkins, Jones, and MacGillicuddy as one.
"No buts about it! Report to Barney's after this meeting, and show up fashionably attired tomorrow morning!"
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at March 19, 2018 1:22 PM
In a group of men, it is common to pick a leader even if one is not needed (pick up sports, group hunting, navigating in the woods, a combat platoon). Men recognize(down in their genes--in both senses) that a group with a leader is stronger than a disorganized group, and one with a strong leader is stronger still. Men will pick the competent, physically strong, talented, confident man as their leader as much as they are able. There are almost no presidential races where the shorter man won (perhaps none). Men in such settings are beaten into submission--they pick a leader even when the man they pick would rather not--that is, they willingly become followers because that is the smart thing to do. Women do not inspire confidence in the sense that a man would want her to lead him into a dangerous situation. They certainly would not want her to be the point person in a fight. In addition, women can't help but be jealous of the queen bee (boss) and will try to tear her down by gossip. This is not conducive to a strong group.
cc at March 19, 2018 1:31 PM
arg: are "not" beaten into submission
cc at March 19, 2018 1:34 PM
Alpha leader-males of history:
Adolf Hitler
Bill Clinton
Genghis Khan
Richard Nixon
Donald Trump
Charlie Sheen
Charles Manson
Winning!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 19, 2018 2:22 PM
Gog, you forgot a few.
History's "alpha male" leaders are not just war mongers and conquerors. Some were scientists, doctors, explorers, artists, religious figures, business leaders, athletes, etc. Some led efforts to combat disease, ignorance, and violence.
Like a modern-day feminist proselytizing against the patriarchal boogey-man, you simply made a list of the most vile and obnoxious men you could think of and claimed they were representative of all men.
For good and bad, alpha males do tend to dominate the environments in which they operate. Some of them are competent at what they do and beneficial to the human race; some are actually nice guys.
The civil rights movement would have gotten nowhere without some alpha males leading it; not to mention a few alpha males driving the 1964 Civil Rights movement through Congress when it got stalled in a Senate Committee.
That's the problem the Democrats are having with the electorate right now. The only arguably cis-gendered men the Party has are Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, John Kerry, and Pajama Boy. There's no strong Democratic male (or female) straddling the narrow world like a giant. The fault is not in their stars, but in their candidates, that they are underlings.
The party's candidates (male and female) speak of hearth issues - welfare, gun control, and child care. They don't speak of the world at large and the dangers in it. They don't speak of meeting challenges in a dangerous world, but of hurtful speech and safe spaces.
None of their leaders seems ready to step in and take charge. They have no one the electorate would follow once more unto the breach; too many of them are leading from behind.
The Party speaks of women as leaders, but has none ready and able to take on the world. The Dems have no Margaret Thatchers, Golda Meirs, or Queen Victorias; no Franklin Roosevelts, Harry Trumans, or Woodrow Wilsons either.
That's one reason they're looking at celebrity candidates - to overcome a weak line-up and an even weaker bench.
It's a party of women, by women, and for women. That's why blue collar men (black and white) are voting Republican or staying home. Conor Lamb won a hotly contested race in Pennsylvania running as a tariff supporting, gun-toting, outspoken critic of his own party's leadership.
Conan the Grammarian at March 19, 2018 3:59 PM
> Conan the Grammarian at March 19, 2018 3:59 PM
✓
Snoopy at March 19, 2018 5:26 PM
The future is female -
https://twitter.com/TheHangingChads/status/975912060121853955/video/1
Snoopy at March 19, 2018 7:19 PM
Good book that swims in the topic concerning matriarchs in other species is The Cultural Lives of Whales and Dolphins.
Abersouth at March 19, 2018 7:59 PM
Hoo boy, not sure if I put this on the slinky, but since the topic is about beta boys..
https://twitter.com/OrwellNGoode/status/975922512608595968
Sixclaws at March 19, 2018 9:31 PM
It's true, we're all just sled dogs in a sled-dog patriarchy. We have no independent thought and we accomplish nothing without bowing to the lead dog.
What a bunch of bullshit.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 20, 2018 8:53 AM
"Most people find someone and marry. Even beta males."
You sound old NicoleK. Marriage is for rich people and gays.
"they often get raped in a bitter divorce a few years later." Is probably why that is true.
Ben at March 20, 2018 8:56 AM
with men consistently committing more lethal violence than women do.
Men also love to make a lot more noise than women do. I think a lot of guys have an orgasm when they hear the sound of a loud revving engine.
One of my favorite lines from a TV show was in Modern Family about four years ago. While on a vacation at a dude ranch in Wyoming, Mitchell wanted to try to be more manly and, when hanging out with Luke, Luke suggested they blow up a birdhouse with a firecracker. Mitchell asked Luke what was go great about doing that, about blowing things up. Luke replied "Because it turns stuff into flying chunks of stuff!"
There you go. Dudes love flying chunks (and noise.)
JD at March 20, 2018 9:26 AM
Crid at March 20, 2018 5:00 PM
Even nowadays, the majority of people will get married. The majority of people are not alphas.
NicoleK at March 21, 2018 6:54 AM
Currently those under 35 (end of fertility for many women) there are 33% who have never been married. Following the trend line for those born today it will be 50% and rising. So give it a little time (20-40 years) and the majority of people won't marry.
Ben at March 21, 2018 12:49 PM
cc: "There are almost no presidential races where the shorter man won."
1972. McGovern was much taller than Nixon. And I remember that because one pundit predicted McGovern would win because of the height difference, in spite of all the insanity going on in McGovern campaign and the Democratic party in general. I think Nixon and Humphrey were about equal height in 1968, and JFK was definitely taller than Nixon in 1960. Height may have become less important as TV replaced personal appearances in political campaigning (roughly 1960 to 1972), as it's quite easy to manipulate the appearance of height on camera.
Aside from Nixon, there's only one president I would think of as short, and I don't know how tall he really was - but Teddy Roosevelt always stood like a bantam rooster in his photographs. Banties' energy and attitude can give them a place in the pecking order above much larger chickens - and that certainly fits TR.
markm at April 29, 2018 9:53 PM
Leave a comment