Is there a reason for male/female societal imbalance?

[Cybran]

I saw a nature show on a particular species of squid once.. you had the typical "big burly males guarding little females", but also small males who would act nonthreatening & "feminine". the small males would easily slip past the big ones while they were fighting each other, and mate with the females. always thought that was funny.

That's the "boring neighbor" type that fucks the "hard worker" type's wife while he is busy trying to make a living.

[Deleted]

And then there's the "evolutionary biologists" who seem to think such things are genetically hardwired into us even though logic (and real evolutionary biology) would dictate that non-aggressive men would have been bred out of the system millennia ago if it were true.

There's a limit to what our genes predispose us to. Our expectations of the opposite sex is not one of those things.

Obviously reality is a lot more complicated, if you want an accurate picture. But we were talking about society, right? About tendences, not abour individuals.

Genes certainly don't dictate our behaviour. We are an intelligent species, we can countermand our genes' commands. But if you analyze human behaviour statistically, you can see the hand of the genes clear as day.

Also, men and women share the same genes. The genes that give the mating preferences for one gender are present in the DNA of the other gender too. And their influence seeps from one gender to the other.

Non aggressive men haven't been bred out of existence for these reasons (preference for aggresiveness is only statistical, and some women will want to mate with motherly-men, due to the influence on female behaviour of the genes that dictate male preference), but also because of deception: aggresiveness is a very energy-consuming survival strategy. Instead of being an aggresive individual you can just fake it. Instead of getting in fights, they fake being very aggresive and strong in power-display gestures (aka beating your chest). If you can intimidate your rival, you can win by faking it. If not, you just run away before there's an actual fight.
And finally, genes that dictate agresiveness are shared by male and female. As long as agresiveness is selected negatively for females, there will be non-agressive males.

[semaphore]

I don't really understand where this aggressive = more reproductive success thing came from (unless you mean proactive, taking the initiative, etc). Men in general becomes less aggressive when they start a family (hormonal changes). From that it seems rational to deduce that aggressiveness isn't something inherently attractive in humans.

[obdigore]

I don't really understand where this aggressive = more reproductive success thing came from (unless you mean proactive, taking the initiative, etc). Men in general becomes less aggressive when they start a family (hormonal changes). From that it seems rational to deduce that aggressiveness isn't something inherently attractive in humans.

It is confidence women want. Knowing who you are, and as cheesy as it is, being yourself, and not caring what other people think. Many men and women confuse confidence with being a jackass, or extreme aggressiveness.

[semaphore]

It is confidence women want. Knowing who you are, and as cheesy as it is, being yourself, and not caring what other people think. Many men and women confuse confidence with being a jackass, or extreme aggressiveness.

Yeah, that's what I would say too. Naked aggression is really quite ugly.

[Laize]

I saw a nature show on a particular species of squid once.. you had the typical "big burly males guarding little females", but also small males who would act nonthreatening & "feminine". the small males would easily slip past the big ones while they were fighting each other, and mate with the females. always thought that was funny.

I believe that was cuttlefish, not squid. I saw the same one.

But drawing a parallel between cephalopods and humans is fallacious because the "evolutionary biology" hypothesis is that women just aren't attracted to non-aggressive men... yet such non-aggressive, uncomfortable-being-leader, men exist so that means that behavior is either:

1) Not true due to the very premises being incorrect (rendering the evolutionary biology hypothesis on the matter incorrect)

OR

2) Learned behavior

I'm more inclined to think it's #2

[Irisel]

we're just starting to evolve our species from the animals we evolved from initially. And, those animals had extremely defined gender roles. And, within those roles, men were stronger and more dominating.

How a days, this doesn't exactly matter, in the sense that we're all equal. But, the inequality has already been formed, and will take time to erase. I don't actually consider human beings to be that much more evolved, than primates, from a social equality standpoint. Considering how smart we are, you would think we'd get past these prejudges.

[Laize]

It is confidence women want. Knowing who you are, and as cheesy as it is, being yourself, and not caring what other people think. Many men and women confuse confidence with being a jackass, or extreme aggressiveness.

That's not the point. Both men and women prefer confidence in their prospective partners. I don't know any man who would think it's a good thing that a woman needs constant, daily reassurances that she's a valuable person. Nor do I know any woman who want a guy who can't even decide where to eat dinner.

This is about expectations of gender in society. A man can be perfectly confident in himself and still not comfortable in a leadership or "take charge" role. Yet that is still the role seemingly thrust on him by society. The reverse is true for women.

---------- Post added 2012-09-11 at 07:57 AM ----------

we're just starting to evolve our species from the animals we evolved from initially. And, those animals had extremely defined gender roles. And, within those roles, men were stronger and more dominating.

How a days, this doesn't exactly matter, in the sense that we're all equal. But, the inequality has already been formed, and will take time to erase. I don't actually consider human beings to be that much more evolved, than primates, from a social equality standpoint. Considering how smart we are, you would think we'd get past these prejudges.

Again, if evolution disfavored non-aggressive men it would have been completely bred out of the species millennia ago. The fact that it persists today is more indicative that it's a learned behavior rather than genetic hardwiring.

[Aerofluff]

Women are allowed to either ask a man they like out, or they're equally free to wait and expect the man to make the first move. For a man to do the same is practically unheard of. Asking (female) friends of mine why yields responses akin to "A real man takes charge" or something similar.

You're expecting hundreds if not thousands of years of psychological programming to be undone in the few decades of modern thinking since women have had that societal freedom? I suspect that, at least in heterosexual women, there's usually at least some subconcious bit of "I like a strong, dominant, take-charge male" still left in them. Why? Nature. Strong mates bring home the food, provide for the family, take care of you. It may not be something women think about, but vestiges of that are probably still in there somewhere, and you can't expect it to vanish instantly just because society accepts aggressive women and women are equal in the workplace and all that jazz.

This expectation seems rather unbalanced. Wouldn't it be true that if there were women comfortable in leadership/aggressive roles, that there would be men who were more comfortable in non-aggressive roles? Yet, for some reason, the man who is not comfortable "taking charge" is expected to shoehorn himself into a role he is uncomfortable being in.

I assure you... while obviously not as numerous, there are many men who while they often hide it from a society who wouldn't understand, prefer to be in a more submissive role to their partner.

Compounding the matter is (a disturbingly large portion of) women who feel it is their right to both expect men to be aggressive in pursuing who they want and then rebuke those same men for that same aggression by labeling them "creepy" or "perv".

There's a very clear difference between being suave and approaching a woman with confidence, and being a perv/creeper. In fact, finding that balance in how to approach -- and the fact that each person is an individual with different tastes, so one approach isn't always going to work -- is part of the difficulty for whoever the approaching party is... including women. Some men also fall prey to old societal standards and may not like overly bold women offering to buy them a drink, so you have to figure out if you're just going to position yourself to sit somewhere and look pretty, or go do it yourself and hope it doesn't backfire. Don't act like men are the only ones who deal with that sort of decision.

[Wells]

And then there's the "evolutionary biologists" who seem to think such things are genetically hardwired into us even though logic (and real evolutionary biology) would dictate that non-aggressive men would have been bred out of the system millennia ago if it were true.

Why did you put quotations around this word?

---------- Post added 2012-09-11 at 08:01 AM ----------

Again, if evolution disfavored non-aggressive men it would have been completely bred out of the species millennia ago. The fact that it persists today is more indicative that it's a learned behavior rather than genetic hardwiring.

You're drawing a hasty conclusion.

[semaphore]

I suspect that, at least in heterosexual women, there's usually at least some subconcious bit of "I like a strong, dominant, take-charge male" still left in them. Why? Nature

That's a fairly substantial claim based on pretty much zero evidence. In fact what you're doing is taking your current social mores and pretending it applies to everyone across all of human history (which it would be if it is based on nature). What about Medieval Japanese noblewomen, who selects sex partners based on their handwriting? Or the very much more common motif of making poetry for women?

Strong mates bring home the food, provide for the family, take care of you.

Which is why people want a dependable, capable, and caring mate. Being "strong" or "dominant" has not a lot to do with it.

[Gandrake]

As far as men having to ask women out goes, I think it's just always been that way. In the words of the late and Great Cotton Hill,

"You will never know if you are attractive. It's up to a man to tell you that."

[semaphore]

As far as men having to ask women out goes, I think it's just always been that way.

Not in other societies. I remember reading about a tribe where the women proposes by making a special meal.

[Laize]

You're expecting hundreds if not thousands of years of psychological programming to be undone in the few decades of modern thinking since women have had that societal freedom? I suspect that, at least in heterosexual women, there's usually at least some subconcious bit of "I like a strong, dominant, take-charge male" still left in them. Why? Nature. Strong mates bring home the food, provide for the family, take care of you. It may not be something women think about, but vestiges of that are probably still in there somewhere, and you can't expect it to vanish instantly just because society accepts aggressive women and women are equal in the workplace and all that jazz.


I assure you... while obviously not as numerous, there are many men who while they often hide it from a society who wouldn't understand, prefer to be in a more submissive role to their partner.


There's a very clear difference between being suave and approaching a woman with confidence, and being a perv/creeper. In fact, finding that balance in how to approach -- and the fact that each person is an individual with different tastes, so one approach isn't always going to work -- is part of the difficulty for whoever the approaching party is... including women. Some men also fall prey to old societal standards and may not like overly bold women offering to buy them a drink, so you have to figure out if you're just going to position yourself to sit somewhere and look pretty, or go do it yourself and hope it doesn't backfire. Don't act like men are the only ones who deal with that sort of decision.

For like the 50 gajillionth time, evolutionary biology dictates that an undesirable quality such as a non-aggressive male would have been bred out of the system millennia ago as surely as primate-level intelligence was.

[semaphore]

as surely as primate-level intelligence was.

Are you sure about that?

[Laize]

Why did you put quotations around this word?

Because there's a difference between true evolutionary biology and armchair evolutionary biology. The idea that women only want strong, aggressive, leader-type men falls apart under even rudimentary scrutiny.

You're drawing a hasty conclusion.

Understanding evolution means realizing that unfavorable traits, by definition, get bred out of the gene pool. If non-aggression was truly genetic AND always undesirable (as these "armchair evolutionary biologists" seem to assert) then it would have been bred out of the system ages ago unless it, too, served a reproductive purpose.

---------- Post added 2012-09-11 at 08:17 AM ----------

Are you sure about that?

Well as stupid as some people are, I don't usually see people throwing poo at each other or standing on their heads peeing into their own mouths.

[Wells]

Understanding evolution means realizing that unfavorable traits, by definition, get bred out of the gene pool. If non-aggression was truly genetic AND always undesirable (as these "armchair evolutionary biologists" seem to assert) then it would have been bred out of the system ages ago unless it, too, served a reproductive purpose.

Your problem is you're jumping to your conclusion without trying to understand why some men might be more dominant than others. For instance you haven't tried to eliminate the possibility that we work better as a species if some men are more dominate because it improves social cohesion.

See what I mean? You are making a hasty conclusion.

[Deleted]

For like the 50 gajillionth time, evolutionary biology dictates that an undesirable quality such as a non-aggressive male would have been bred out of the system millennia ago as surely as primate-level intelligence was.

Did you see my reply?

Btw, evolution didn't bred out primate-level intelligence. There's a number of species with that level of intelligence. Namely, the primates.

[Laize]

Did you see my reply?

Btw, evolution didn't bred out primate-level intelligence. There's a number of species with that level of intelligence. Namely, the primates.

*rubs temples*

Primate level intelligence in humans. I really didn't think it needed to be said because humans are the only species this thread is about (Cuttlefish sidebar not withstanding).

---------- Post added 2012-09-11 at 08:37 AM ----------

Your problem is you're jumping to your conclusion without trying to understand why some men might be more dominant than others. For instance you haven't tried to eliminate the possibility that we work better as a species if some men are more dominate because it improves social cohesion.

See what I mean? You are making a hasty conclusion.

Then the "armchair evolutionary biologist" hypothesis is built on a false premise. That women are only attracted to assertive, leader-type men.

So as I've been saying, the fact that non-aggressive males exist in our society either means:

1) Not all women (in fact, a statistically significant portion of women) are attracted to aggression and "take charge" attitudes.

OR

2) The attraction to aggression is learned and not genetic.

[fishface]

That's not the point. Both men and women prefer confidence in their prospective partners. I don't know any man who would think it's a good thing that a woman needs constant, daily reassurances that she's a valuable person. Nor do I know any woman who want a guy who can't even decide where to eat dinner.

This is about expectations of gender in society. A man can be perfectly confident in himself and still not comfortable in a leadership or "take charge" role. Yet that is still the role seemingly thrust on him by society. The reverse is true for women.[COLOR="red"]

This is the thing, generally, women want a man who has (or seeks) power and control over his own life. They want a guy who knows what he wants in life, they don't necessarily want someone who's going to be president someday.

Yes, there'll be women who'll only settle for some high roller but at least they're a much smallor minority than the amount of men who would be uncomfortable in a relationship with a woman who was more intelligent, powerful, confident or taller.

Good relationships are all about finding your equal. If you'd been to university and was halfway through a prosperous and exciting career why would you want to settle for someone who dropped out of high school, in a job they hate who plays videogames 5 hours a day?

Of course all this i'm saying isn't applicable to every man/woman at all.