Is there anything good about men?

[Rollo Tomassi]

This should be required reading for the Mature and the High School forums:

Is there anything good about men?

I realize it's a long read, but you'll get a much better, and more balanced understanding about gender differences, feminism and how the sexes have evolved socially and psychologically.

In particular read the paragraph toward the bottom about "Earning Manhood".

 

[Bible_Belt]

Interesting. I did not know that 80% of females over history reproduced, yet only 40% of males did so.

 

[Da Realist]

That explains a lot.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Some sociological writings about the male role have emphasized that to be a man, you have to produce more than you consume. That is, men are expected, first, to provide for themselves: If somebody else provides for you, you’re less than a man. Second, the man should create some additional wealth or surplus value so that it can provide for others in addition to himself. These can be his wife and children, or others who depend on him, or his subordinates, or even perhaps just paying taxes that the government can use. Regardless, you’re not a man unless you produce at that level.

I thought this was brilliant. I may even drag this over to the high school forum since I think this message is severely lacking in how we raise boys into Men. There used to be a time when some cultures had a rite of manhood or a passing into adult responsibility and respect. Jews have a Bar Mitzvah, certain native American tribes had similar traditions, etc. I think that if there's a modern social complaint about men remaining perpetually juvenile this is the root of it - we don't respect Manhood enough to define what's expected and when it's due.

 

[Jeffst1980]

Great link--this should be stickied.

 

[02hero]

An excellent read, thanks Rollo.

 

[Warrior74]

Top notch.

 

[Vader]

That's really good info.

Everyone (man) should be good at something.

Hard to believe the 80/40 thing.

 

[LeftyLoosey]

Brilliant dissertation. The more I read about the evolutionary reasons as to why men and women are they way they are (just read Joe Quirk's book as well), the more obvious and simple life becomes. Dare I say I now know what the "meaning of life" is: to reproduce effectively and frequently!

 

[Colossus]

Interesting article. It corroborates what is sometimes said: that life IS often harder as a man, and certainly less forgiving.

 

[Luthor Rex]

I hate feminism as I hate hell.

I loved some of the sarcasm this guy had:

But that’s not what he said. He said there were more men at the top levels of ability. That could still be true despite the average being the same — if there are also more men at the bottom of the distribution, more really stupid men than women. During the controversy about his remarks, I didn’t see anybody raise this question, but the data are there, indeed abundant, and they are indisputable. There are more males than females with really low IQs. Indeed, the pattern with mental retardation is the same as with genius, namely that as you go from mild to medium to extreme, the preponderance of males gets bigger.

All those retarded boys are not the handiwork of patriarchy. Men are not conspiring together to make each other’s sons mentally retarded.

I also like this, if feels almost Pook-ish:

For men, the outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd and play it safe, the odds are you won’t have children. Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today. Their lines were dead ends. Hence it was necessary to take chances, try new things, be creative, explore other possibilities. Sailing off into the unknown may be risky, and you might drown or be killed or whatever, but then again if you stay home you won’t reproduce anyway. We’re most descended from the type of men who made the risky voyage and managed to come back rich. In that case he would finally get a good chance to pass on his genes. We’re descended from men who took chances (and were lucky).

 

[SXS]

interesting, but most of it is on the level of common sense.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

A more in depth exploration of the same subject, with pretty much the same conclusions can be found in The Red Queen, by Matt Ridley, first published some 15 years ago. That book has been a staple of many seduction sites and forums for years (judging by the "customers who bought.....also bought...." section on amazon.com)

The simple solution is to figure out a way to be in the top tier of society in all respects, and you've got it made. Studying the "Why's" will only get you so far, you need to figure out the "How's."

Classic books like "Think and Grow Rich," "The Prince," and Sun Tzu's "The Art of War," are good places to start.

 

[Hooligan Harry]

Great find Rollo, although he tends to be quite diplomatic in an aim to appear fair.

This I found to be quite interesting though.

Research by Brenda Major and others back in the 1970s used procedures like this. A group of subjects would perform a task, and the experimenter would then say that the group had earned a certain amount of money, and it was up to one member to divide it up however he or she wanted. The person could keep all the money, but that wasn?t usually what happened. Women would divide the money equally, with an equal share for everybody. Men, in contrast, would divide it unequally, giving the biggest share of reward to whoever had done the most work.

Which is better? Neither. Both equality and equity are valid versions of fairness. But they show the different social sphere orientation. Equality is better for close relationships, when people take care of each other and reciprocate things and divide resources and opportunities equally. In contrast, equity — giving bigger rewards for bigger contributions — is more effective in large groups. I haven’t actually checked, but I’m willing to bet that if you surveyed the Fortune 500 large and successful corporations in America, you wouldn’t find a single one out of 500 that pays every employee the same salary. The more valuable workers who contribute more generally get paid more. It simply is a more effective system in large groups. The male pattern is suited for the large groups, the female pattern is best suited to intimate pairs.

Women are naturally more predisposed to equal sharing regardless of risk or productivity. Communism. Men are more predisposed to risk and equitable share based on performance. Capitalism.

Consider that communism leads to drops in productivity and creativity. Consider that capitalism leads to rapid development and productivity increases.

That explains WHY men are more successful then women are. Despite preferential treatment in the workplace and systems of education that suit women, men dominate everything from business to science. Its why women invent nothing. Its why so few take a business from the garage to the stock exchange. Its why no matter how much legislation we pass to uplift women, they will never be able to compete with men because at a BASE level they simply cannot comprehend risk reward. Its alien to them.

Both systems have their advantages. Both systems have their weakness. But its a system of thought ingrained into our biological makeup that education and social conditioning is really going to struggle to overcome, if it even could which in itself is unlikely.

 

[piranha45]

So then, our US economy is being womanized. Good God.

Demonstrable proof that europeans are more feminine than we, nonetheless.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Heh, perhaps, but the Godfather of modern communism was Karl Marx, a man. I can see the progression, but I think that's a bit of a stretch since it presumes that women can't learn the merits of equity or men the value of equality. Especially without knowing the parameters and context of the research done in the 1970s. It's correlative study at best, but still one that seems to be observable in life. Hard to say.

 

[azanon]

Hate to buck the trend, but I saw nothing useful in that article. For me, simply understanding why things are the way they are isn't enough to make it worth my time. There has to be something that I can apply to my life for it to be worthwhile for me.

Informative...., if not equally dull.

 

[Jitterbug]

There has to be something that I can apply to my life for it to be worthwhile for me.

I personally can see plenty for me.

Nearly everyday, I'm presented with situations where a bunch of women and maginas verbally bash & shame men. There are two popular choices of responses: say nothing (which is what caused the problem in the first place) or argue back MRA-style, which would defeat their arguments but make a lot of enemies in the process instead of converts.

This professor's diplomatic approach is a far superior choice. I get to speak my mind while perfectly covering my arse at the same time.

 

[STR8UP]

The only real problem with this is that he gives no credit to men for their HARD WORK. He basically says that you can spend your life busting your ass, but unless you are lucky it is all for naught.

Typical of a guy who is writing papers instead of building empires.

 

[NewMan]

but unless you are lucky it is all for naught

maybe - but reality is, you do need to be lucky. You ca work your a$$ off all you want - but luck has her part to play.