Is There Anything Good About Men?

[Jenny]

I ran across this article titled Is There Anything Good About Men? given in an address by Roy F. Baumeister and would love to hear what you think. I found it incredibly thought-provoking and it raised oh, so many questions! By the way, I didn't name it so don't shoot the messenger. I find many a thing good about men.

A brief summary:

• He lays the groundwork by introducing the concept of culture as an abstract system that competes against rival systems and in the process uses both men and women (albeit in different ways) to advance its cause. So his true question isn't is there anything good about men rather what are men good for from the perspective of a culture?

• Dutton further clarifies that his entire theory is built around the concept of trade-offs so whenever there is something that is good it is inevitably tied to something that is bad and the two ultimately balance out.

• He argues that biologically and genetically men have more extremes than women in everything from height to IQ levels. In other words men really are better AND worse than women and it is this pattern of extremes among men that create misleading calculations and many a statistical quirk in measuring the similarities and differences between the sexes.

• Rather than different yet equal he proposes a radical theory of gender equality. He suggests that men and women may be different, but each advantage of a particular sex is likely linked to a disadvantage. So upon hearing that women are better at something then men it would be wise to stop and question why this is likely true — and what the opposite trait might be good for.

and...well, this is getting quite long so just one more point.

• Men and women's social and intimate relationships are structured differently in response to the needs of the cultural system they exist within with two very distinct ways of being social. Women tend to specialize in the sphere of close, intimate relationships while men tend to specialize in the sphere of broad, shallow relationships. Neither good nor bad these different social sphere orientations have do with the different benefits they offer to the long-term maintance and growth of a specific cultural system.

Seriously, give it a read as my summary doesn't do justice!

[songwriter]

I had a funny discussion with a woman that said women are superior to men. "Superior in what?... Superior in.. modesty too?" lol...
I already believe since a long time ago that every virtue goes tied with a fault... so "superior" is nothing...

It makes me feel like I should be a blogger.

[JimOfferman]

Great article! Thanks for posting.

Btw. the address was given by Roy F. Baumeister, not Dennnis Dutton himself.

[Jenny]

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Btw. the address was given by Roy F. Baumeister, not Dennnis Dutton himself.

Woops! I just changed what I wrote above to reflect this.

Thanks for the catch Jim!

[Erki]

Women are good because of what they are, men are good because of what they do.

[Rose of Cairo]

How do you mean that Erki?

good as persons, in your opinion, or in the eyes of society, or how?

[Erki]

I mean like what's the way they are valuable.

[Rose of Cairo]

hmmm I don't understand the difference. Could you explain it to me please?

[Erki]

Women are valuable because of who they are - lovable, loving, nurturing, etc.
Men are valuable because of what they do - do business, kill enemies, bring the bacon home, do stuff.

Should I add that I'm playing devil's advocate here? I can't agree with any of the aforementioned; simply because I don't think(or maybe that I hope?) that the life's impelling force is competition.

Culture an abstract system that competes against rival systems and in the process uses both men and women (albeit in different ways) to advance its cause. - Why can't those "cultures" be like... pick and choose?, not at odds with each other.

[Rose of Cairo]

Originally Posted by Erki

Should I add that I'm playing devil's advocate here? I can't agree with any of the aforementioned

I agree with you.

I don't like statements in the form "men <do this>/<are like this>, women <do that>/<are like that>" anyway.

[openeyes]

I generally agree with Roy's thesis, and particularly appreciate the depth he goes into, though it's not new to me. A good book that covers one element of it is Warren Farrell's Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap -- and What Women Can Do About It.

As on the Amazon.com page:

"Why do men earn more than women? Because they deserve to, argues this contrarian challenge to feminist conventional wisdom. Men work longer hours at more dangerous and disagreeable jobs. They more readily accept night shifts, hardship postings to Alaska and entrepreneurial risks. Men get in-demand degrees in engineering, while women get degrees in French literature. Female librarians earn less than garbagemen, not because of discrimination, but because so many applicants compete for the safe, clean, comfortable, convenient, fulfilling jobs women prefer. Indeed, the author insists, statistics show that women and men with equal experience and qualifications, doing the same job, for the same hours, under the same conditions-get paid the same. Farrell, author of The Myth of Male Power, usefully points women towards high-paying, male-dominated fields that are becoming female friendly and suggests that ambitious women marry stay-at-home husbands."

[Erki]

I wonder what would it be like if there was just one big culture consisting of littler sub-cultures(which all have their own place and are interdependent), with no rivalry and near-perfect safety?

[wolfgang]

Has anyone heard the idea that a Y chromozone is a mutation of the X one? And that the Y has less genetic information than an X does? That originally organisims had identical pairs of chromos (XX) and somewhere along the line the Y showed up? So, males are really mutants.

Or that God made woman first and she said she was bored, so God said I'll make something for you to play with but you can't tell him he is second best with a rib missing. God, said so we'll tell him he is missing a rib because we borrowed it to create you (the woman) second so he wan't get mad.

[openeyes]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Has anyone heard the idea that a Y chromozone is a mutation of the X one? And that the Y has less genetic information than an X does? That originally organisims had identical pairs of chromos (XX) and somewhere along the line the Y showed up? So, males are really mutants.

From the gist of the piece, it seems that the makeup of men is a bit less stable so there's more diversity and evolution occurs more readily, while the female blueprint is more apt to stay within certain bounds. Thus men are more apt to be a genius or an idiot, while women are closer to the median, on average. So again, rather than men being 2nd best, some are better, some are worse.

[valis]

function vs. fashion. In a man's eyes, if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough buttons. Yet the same man will think nothing of walking outside with a striped shirt and plaid shorts (and yes, that is a personal experience....even the lady at walmart had a crack to make, and she was wearing a blue vest with loads of flair).

Whereas women are completely happy that if it ain't broke, don't fix it, until it comes to the wardrobe. Then all bets are off.

In all honesty, I think it depends on the individual. To say that women are more nurturing is, I think, a bit of a misnomer. I know plenty of fathers that dote heavily on their children, and more than a few that are more supportive of the kids's endeavours than the mother is. Having said that, I know a slew that are in the opposite columns. So I think it boils down to how the individual parent was raised, and how the individual reacts to certain circumstances.

But to make a generalized statement that women are more nurturing than men is akin, IMO, to a generalized statement that men are better drivers than women. There's exceptions to each side.

v

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Has anyone heard the idea that a Y chromozone is a mutation of the X one? And that the Y has less genetic information than an X does? That originally organisims had identical pairs of chromos (XX) and somewhere along the line the Y showed up? So, males are really mutants.

By that criteria everything alive today is a mutant; evolved through some mutation in its genes. The scale of the mutation may differ, but they're still mutations.

Originally Posted by valis

But to make a generalized statement that women are more nurturing than men is akin, IMO, to a generalized statement that men are better drivers than women. There's exceptions to each side.

For sure. We have to remember when using generalisations that we're talking about averages and that individuals vary within a certain range.

I think what Roy says makes sense, in general men's relationships are shallower and larger than women's, and work in different ways. Which has always set me on the outside. I've always preferred closer, fewer relationships. I have no interest in the competitive aspects of large groups and would be (and have been) perfectly happy working in very small groups.

Other men clearly strive to be the king of the biggest castle, and undoubtedly some have used that position to further their own ends at the expense of others, which is why it has been so easy for feminists to criticise male dominance. But it always struck me as unlikely that the reason for male dominance was because all men wanted it that way. It seems to make far more sense that most women don't relate to each other, or to men, in the same way that men do, and that way has been more successful in terms of enabling productive large networks.

Are there examples of large networks of women thriving? If so, what makes them work?

And is this the best way? Surely combining competitive and cooperative approaches would be far more effective than either alone? And since differentiation and integration are both required to achieve maximum growth, surely a group would benefit more from the differentiating approach men focus on, combined with the integrative approach favoured by women. Are there examples of this? Or of it failing?

And why does communism fail? What would make it work?

And is the push within the spiritual community for the collective evolution of consciousness likely also to fail if it focuses too heavily on equality and cooperation without encouraging at least some aspects of individualism?

[Erki]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

And is the push within the spiritual community for the collective evolution of consciousness likely also to fail if it focuses too heavily on equality and cooperation without encouraging at least some aspects of individualism?

I think equality and cooperation have individuality already built in them. Individuality doesn't, and doesn't have to mean me vs. you; to me, individuality means me and you.

In the essay, it's the men and men's relationships that withhold individuality. In those large and shallow relationships, parties are getting quite generic, and differentiates only by the little differences. (Hence maybe that notion of men in groups identifying themselves by how they are different from others, and women by how they are similar.) And if you're generic, you're not really that valuable.

In a cooperative community, consisting of individuals who all are distinct and have distinct and non-replaceable "tasks to do", you can't replace anyone so easily.

Which is easier to replace: president of a country or a parent of a child?

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Erki

In the essay, it's the men and men's relationships that withhold individuality.

Funny, I read it differently. What I got from it is that men's large networks shallow relationships necessitate developing unique traits to make you stand out. Without something to set you apart from the rest, you don't stand a chance to become king of the hill.

In a cooperative community, consisting of individuals who all are distinct and have distinct and non-replaceable "tasks to do", you can't replace anyone so easily.

Which makes such cooperative communities quite fragile. If one of the non-replaceable individuals perishes, what happens to the group as a whole? If the hunter of the tribe dies, someone will have to step up and replace him (or her), otherwise the tribe as a whole can't continue to exist.

Which is easier to replace: president of a country or a parent of a child?

That is precisely the point that mr. Baumeister makes in his address. Government (a male dominated large network of shallow relationships) was designed to have all the individuals within that organization be replaceable. A family is built on a few of the close and intimate relationships that are - in general - preferred by women.

Governments also can't exist without the families that ultimately support them. Men and women are not at odds with each other, they just have different roles to play in society at large.

[Erki]

Very good, Jim. I have to confess, I struggle to find counter-arguments for your points. (tired from work too, maybe I have something to say later though.)

I guess it's just me and my wanting to be lovable, non-disposable, cherished, and "valuable" too; and inherently so, not because of my achievements.

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Erki

Very good, Jim. I have to confess, I struggle to find counter-arguments for your points. (tired from work too, maybe I have something to say later though.)

I guess it's just me and my wanting to be lovable, non-disposable, cherished, and "valuable" too; and inherently so, not because of my achievements.

Well, he was talking about men in general... nothing is stopping you from being how you want to be.

[Jenny]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

But it always struck me as unlikely that the reason for male dominance was because all men wanted it that way.

Yes Mark, that has also been a stumbling block for me.

Originally Posted by Erki

I guess it's just me and my wanting to be lovable, non-disposable, cherished, and "valuable" too; and inherently so, not because of my achievements.

Ha, ha I understand what you are saying Erki. I want to know that I matter for more than being lovable, cherished or someone's something (lover, partner, daughter, etc). I used to long to be seen for what I am, what I think and what I do.

Originally Posted by JimOfferman

Well, he was talking about men in general... nothing is stopping you from being how you want to be.

Yes, spot on Jim. Years ago I intellectually understood this (for women, not men in my case) but honestly it took me some time to grow that knowledge into a life and it's still a work in progress.

[Rose of Cairo]

Originally Posted by Erki

I guess it's just me and my wanting to be lovable, non-disposable, cherished, and "valuable" too; and inherently so, not because of my achievements.

You are inherently lovable, non-disposable, cherished, and valuable. You don't need any achievements. Every (human) being is inherently lovable, non-disposable, cherished and valuable, who cares about gender.

And you are particularly

[Erin]

This evening I came across some research stating that in relationships men yearn for respect, while women for love. This seems to add support the different type of gendered relationships. The larger a man's social network, the more respect (assuming he does it successfully). The closer knit a woman's social network, the more love.