Difference between revisions of "Men Are Exceptional"

From Wiki 4 Men
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(137 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
  +
Men and women vary in many ways. The debate has raged for a long time about whether this is more likely to be a result of nature or nurture. Some feminist groups tend to maintain that the differences are socialised and thus very much within the nurture camp. Recent research has shown that there are fundamental differences between human males and females, and that behavioural differences are evident even a few days after birth. So while some differences are certainly socialised we cannot any longer ignore or dismiss the fundamental differences that exist between human males and females.
The bulk of the observed differences between male and female life
 
outcomes can be explained with reference to only two differences: Men
 
tend to vary more for most characteristics and men are more inclined to
 
take risks than women. This, in turn, leads to the startling conclusion
 
that society is in fact a meritocracy.
 
   
  +
It is the thesis of this article that a large proportion of observed differences between male and female life outcomes can be explained with reference to only one difference: variance. Men tend to vary in characteristics more than women. This has been shown to be true for all characteristics that have been studied and there is good evidence to suggest it is generally true.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19031491</ref> This is often known as ''Greater Male Variability'' or the ''variability hypothesis'' although it would perhaps be better called a theory now as evidence builds. It is notable that this notion fell out of favour as a result of the activities of feminists in academia.<ref>http://gem.greenwood.com/wse/wsePrint.jsp?id=id670</ref>.
== Variance ==
 
   
  +
Men vary more in height, weight and many other physical characteristics. While the average intelligence of men and women are the same or almost the same what is clear is that males vary more than females in intelligence.<ref>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886906000420</ref> This means that a majority of people with high IQs will be men as will a majority of people with a low IQ. The further we get from the mean the more pronounced this phenomenon is. Astoundingly, greater variance among men even appears to be true when it comes to personality.<ref>http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/do-men-have-more-varied-personalities.html</ref>
Men tend to vary in characteristics more than women. This has been
 
shown to be true for all characteristics that have been studied and
 
there is good evidence to suggest it is generally true.{{fact}}
 
   
  +
Everywhere we go we see the same trend. Men tending to dominate at the top of society with other men tending to fall to the bottom of society, with a smaller group of men and most women clustered in the middle.
** List characteristics that have been shown to have greater variance among men
 
*** Intelligence
 
   
  +
When the females of a species invest significantly more energy in to gestation than males, as is the case for humans, then the size of the next generation is largely constrained by the number of fertile females. As a result of this a species can generally tolerate the loss of a male more easily than the loss of a female. It thus makes sense for a species to allow males to vary more in their characteristics. If a characteristic is disadvantageous to a species then the loss of males will be less damaging than the loss of females. If a characteristic is advantageous it can be spread to the rest of the species. Thus testing new characteristics on males is an advantage to a species overall and so we find men vary in their characteristics more than women. In effect the loss of women will constrain the size of the next generation, the loss of men will constrain genetic diversity. This does not justify male disposability though. Even if men were biologically disposable in the past, they no longer need to be. The Earth carries more than seven billion people today and could be carrying 10 or 11 billion within a few decades. We no longer need the ability to rapidly recover numbers, thus any presumed bias towards male disposability that existed in the past no longer applies.
Everywhere we go we see the same trend. Men tending to excel at the top
 
of society and other men tending to fall to the bottom of society, with
 
a smaller group of men and most women clustered in the middle.
 
   
  +
Among humans the greater variance among men leads to significant implications for society. These tendencies have a widespread and profound impact on the human species and human civilisation and go a very long way to explaining the observed differences between men and women in terms of life choices and outcomes.
When the females of a species invest significantly more energy in to
 
reproduction than males then the size of the next generation is largely
 
constrained by the number of fertile females. As a result of this a
 
species can generally tolerate the loss of a male more easily than the
 
loss of a female. It thus makes sense for a species to allow males to
 
vary more in their characteristics. If a characteristic is
 
disadvantageous to a species then the loss of males will be less
 
damaging than the loss of females. If the characteristics is
 
advantageous it can be spread to the rest of the community. Thus
 
testing new characteristics on males is an advantage to a species overall
 
and so we find men vary in their characteristics more than women.
 
   
  +
Since men vary more in characteristics it follows that they will be over-represented among the highest achievers in many areas. The lowest achievers in an area, those not suitable for employment or endeavour in that area, will generally choose to not work in that area. As a result when we look at most areas of achievement we should see the highest levels dominated by men with the rest of the men in the field and most women among those who perform in the field competently but without great distinction. If the highest achievers in a field are mostly men then we should expect the highest paid members of the field to be mostly men too.
This is generally true for any species where females must invest
 
significantly more energy into reproduction than males. Thus most
 
mammal species follow the same trend.
 
   
  +
A particularly notable area is scientific achievement which has been overwhelmingly conducted by men. Some argue that female scientists have been marginalised and their accomplishments attributed to men. That may be true in some cases but the reverse is true also. Marie Curie is often remembered for conducting ground breaking research in to radioactivity. Most know her name, but few know that she collaborated with two other scientists for this work - her husband Pierre Curie and Henri Becquerel. Marie was actually the junior of the three scientists. Despite this she is often believed by the wider community to have made significant discoveries on her own with the efforts of her husband and Becquerel forgotten. Both Marie and Pierre were responsible for the discovery of ''Polonium'' and ''Radium'' although today these discoveries are often attributed to Marie alone.
In case case of humans tendency this leads to significant implications for society.
 
   
  +
In medicine, more than half of all doctors are women but they tend to become general practitioners. Most specialists are men. A good example is surgery. A surgeon needs to be intelligent, to have achieved both a medical degree and to have passed in this demanding speciality. But that isn't sufficient. A surgeon needs an exceptionally steady hand and good manual dexterity - this cannot be taught. An individual either has these characteristics or they do not.<ref>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080821080510AA8cKS5</ref> Even if we ignore other contributing factors the greater variance among men in intelligence, manual dexterity and endurance should lead to the conclusion that most surgeons will be men.
== Risk ==
 
   
  +
Business and political leaders are overwhelmingly men. Just as with scientific endeavour, men will dominate among those who are over-achievers in business with other men and most women performing competently.
Men often engage in risky behaviour to impress women. A common opinion among biologists is thart this is an evolved
 
characteristic to allow men to demonstratrate fitness to potential mates{{fact}}
 
   
  +
Evidence suggests that men have always dominated among societies leaders. This is reflected in the modern world with men dominating among politicians in every country today except Rwanda. Rwanda is an exception because men were overwhelmingly the victims of the ''Rwanda Genocide'' and even today constitute only 46.5% of the population.<ref>http://statistics.gov.rw/publications/article/women-account-majority-rwandan-population</ref>
== Consequences ==
 
   
  +
Since men vary more in personality, in capabilities, and are over-represented among those with low IQ it follows that men should be over-represented among those who are anti-social, have difficulty fitting in and following societies rules. These are precisely the people most likely to commit offences and be imprisoned. This is what we do see in societies around the world.
These tendencies has a widespread and profound impact on the human species
 
and human civilisation and goes a very long way to explaining the
 
observed differences between men and women in terms of life choices and
 
outcomes.
 
   
  +
It should be noted that all else being equal men are more likely to be charged with an offence, more likely to be convicted of an offence, and if they are convicted they are more likely to be incarcerated and will on average serve a significantly longer sentence. This is all true even when the circumstances surrounding the offence are substantially similar. Thus the higher proportion of male prison inmates cannot be explained by variance alone and is a function of institutional bias against men in the judicial system of many countries.
Income differential is partly a result of exceptionality and partly a result of risk taking, but many other factors are
 
relevant too.
 
   
  +
The vast majority of composers are men.<ref>http://www.classical-music.com/blog/gender-gap</ref> Music composition shows the same pattern that we see in other areas of endeavour. Those who have little or only average capabilities in music composition will not generally pursue this as a career. In contrast those who excel at music composition will pursue it as a career. Similarly, the majority of musicians are men. Many orchestras have around 25-30% female participation.<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/classical/features/where-are-all-the-female-musicians-8343938.html</ref> We should see the greatest domination by men in areas where individuality is most important. Among all areas of music the greatest gender disparity exists in jazz. This is also the area of music where individuality is most important, with the high emphasis on creativity and improvisation.
=== Scientific Research ===
 
   
  +
A notable area dominated by men is the game of chess. Chess is notable because it does not require physical strength, manual dexterity or any physical characteristics other than the ability to communicate. Chess does not require any knowledge other than knowledge of chess. Even having a high IQ is not a guarantee of success in chess. Like many fields of endeavour hard work and commitment are necessary along with innate ability. Having said that, chess is perhaps the purest example of exceptionality we have. The vast majority of chess grand masters are men.
The nobel prize has been overwhelmingly won by men.
 
   
  +
Men even dominate in knowledge based game shows.<ref>http://www.mgtowforums.com/forums/mgtow-general-discussion/12729-jeopardy-$50k-top-winners-gender-breakdown.html</ref>
Some argue that female scientists have been marginalised and their accomplishments attributed to men. That may be true in
 
som cases but the reverse is true also.
 
   
  +
It is a reasonably obvious position to claim that employers will generally want to employ people who can perform the work involved in that job to a reasonable standard. It can often be difficult to differentiate people who would be exceptional at performing the work. The bottom few percent of the population (as measured by job specific capability) will be the ones most likely to be unable to obtain employment. The bottom few percent of the population will be dominated by men. Thus, based on gender variance alone we may expect men to have a higher unemployment rate than women.
=== Medicine ===
 
   
  +
Quite a lot has been made of the y-chromosome of late. Claims are made that it is small, broken and inadequate. This is just more casual misandry. Those making statements like this have, at least, a fundamentally flawed view of human sexual selection and genetics. The y-chromosome is the basis of the exceptionality of men. It destabilises human genetics, which is precisely what you need to have exceptional individuals. It is why more male foetuses abort but it is also why there are more male Nobel prize winners, and great poets. Many of those denigrating the y-chromosome are ignoring the evidence right in front of their eyes.
More than half of doctors are women but they tend to become GPs. Most
 
specialists are men. This can be explained through the greater variance
 
among men. If we take surgery as an example. A surgeon needs to be
 
intelligent, to have achieved both a medical degree and to have passed
 
in this demanding speciality. But that isn't sufficient. A surgeon
 
needs an exceptionally steady hand and good manual dexterity - this
 
cannot be taught. An individual either has these characteristics or
 
they do not.
 
   
  +
This article has discussed the notion of greater variation, the negative and positive consequences of this and how they explain many of the historical trends observed. History is replete with powerful, famous and successful women but they were typically a minority.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080821080510AA8cKS5
 
   
  +
The notion of greater variance among men has been discussed for decades and is, perhaps not surprisingly, not popular in feminist discourse. In 2005 Lawrence Summers, then the president of Harvard University, speculated on greater variance among men and the resultant domination of certain fields, particularly physical sciences, by men. Despite the fact that he made it clear that he was not criticising the suitability of women to physical sciences, he was publicly castigated and was subsequently the subject of a no-confidence motion by a faculty at Harvard. Harvard subsequently launched various initiatives to advance women in academia over the following months. It is likely that Summers innocent comments on gender variance and the subsequent outrage were major contributors to his resignation the following year.
=== Business ===
 
   
  +
In the end statistical analysis of the relative merits of different groups of humans is interesting but it says nothing about the ability of a particular individual human to achieve. Just because men dominate in a particular field does not mean that any given man is able to achieve in that field and it does not mean that any given woman cannot achieve in that field.
Business and political leaders are overwhelmingly men. These are high
 
risk occupations. Success often involves riches and glory. Failure can
 
mean significant loss and in extreme cases destitution.
 
   
  +
The title of this article may seem incendiary and may have caused some people to become angry. The title is of course a pun. Men are exceptional - but this means that men are over-represented among the most successful people in society but also over-represented among the least successful people in society. The title is offered as proof that Hanna Rosin, author of "The End of Men" and "Men are Obsolete" is not the only person who can write articles with provocative titles.
=== Homelessness and criminality ===
 
   
  +
In general if you have a group of people who are competing on equal terms for top roles the most capable will be most likely to gain these roles. In many cases we can expect more men than women to be among the over-achievers and among the under-achievers. But the top roles are taken by the over-achievers, who are more likely to be men.
Homeless, criminals and prison inmates are overwhelmingly men.
 
   
  +
It should be noted that nothing in this article should be taken as being negative towards women. Women and men are needed for a properly functioning society. This article should also not be construed as suggesting that women cannot achieve at the highest levels. An individual is not constrained by the norms for their gender. Just because there are fewer women at the highest levels of achievement in many areas does not mean, in general, that a particular woman cannot be the best at what they do. It does mean though that most areas of achievement will be dominated by men. In many ways, men represent the best and worst of humanity.
=== Music ===
 
   
  +
== External Links ==
Vast majority of composers are men
 
   
  +
*[http://www.aei.org/publication/2016-sat-test-results-confirm-pattern-thats-persisted-for-45-years-high-school-boys-are-better-at-math-than-girls/ Discussion on SAT results at AEI]
Majority of musicians are men. Many orchestras have around 25-30% female
 
participation[http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/classical/features/where-are-all-the-female-musicians-8343938.html]
 
   
  +
== References ==
Vast majority of jazz musicians are men.
 
   
  +
[[Category:Featured Articles]]
=== Conflict ===
 
 
Men contitute the vast majority of casualties in all forms of physical conflict.
 
 
People who volunteerily join the armed forces are accepting the risks that this lifestyle entails. Even in societies were
 
women are entitled to take up arms, it is men who overwhelmingly do so. People join the military for a variety of reasons
 
but one important aspect is the inherently highly risk nature of this occupation.
 
 
 
Men tend to be over-represented among the casualties in revolutions.
 
While men and women may seek to overturn oppressive regimes it is men
 
who pay the price in blood to make that happen.
 
 
== Y Chomosome ==
 
 
Quite a lot has been made of the poor Y chromosome of late. Claims are
 
made that it is small, broken and inadequate. This is just more casual
 
misandry. Those making statements like this have, at least, a
 
fundamentally flawed view of human sexual selection and genetics. The
 
y-chromosome is the basis of the exceptionality of men. It
 
destabilities human genetics, which is precisely what you need to have
 
exceptional indviduals. It is why more male foetuses abort but it is
 
also why there are more male nobel prize winners, and great poets. Many
 
of those denigrating the y-chromosome are ignoring the evidence right in
 
front of their eyes. They try to presume to understand the effects of
 
the y-chromosome when all they need to do is look at the world to find
 
them. Look out of the window. That's the world and the innovations and
 
structures we see around us were overwhelmingly brought about by men.
 
Looking back at the computer or smartphone screen - that world was
 
overwhelmingly brought about by men too. Vety few women have been
 
involved. This is the elephant in the corner when it comes to
 
discussions about gender. Women who want to achieve need only go out
 
and do so - and a minority have done just that both today and in times
 
past while they supposedly lived under a patriarchy.
 
 
== Conclusion ==
 
 
This article has discussed at length the notion of greater variation
 
among men and risk taking behaviour in men, the negative and positive
 
consequences of these and how they explains many of the historical
 
trends observed.
 
 
It should be obvious to everyone today that women perform wide vaiety of paid employment competently. This is not new with
 
women having participated in the workforce of a community throughout history. The idea that women were forced to stay home
 
and cook and clean through the ages until a recent emancipation just does not stand up to even a cursory review of the
 
range of human societies that have existed through time. Most women, however, tend to choose work that is clean and safe.
 
Most women are clustered near the middle of society - most in safe and moderatelty well paying employment. Relatively few
 
women are homeless and outcasts from society, and few are making radical achievements that will fundamentally change the
 
state of human affairs.
 
 
The world needs men. Human civilisation needs men. Many areas of
 
employment are overwhelmingly performed by men. Despite high levels of
 
youth unemployment around the world young women are not even trying to
 
work in these areas. Perhaps most women could do these jobs but we
 
can't know, given that most of them won't even try.
 
 
Men are over-represented in the top rankings of virtually every
 
area of endeavour. Some people look up, see mostly men and make claims
 
of patriarchy. Those people need to look down. If they do they will
 
also see mostly men.
 
 
If society really is a meritocracy, as the evidence presented in this
 
ariticle tends to suggest, then the most important characteristic that
 
will determine success in life is merit.
 
 
Even preferences cannot fully explain the gender bias seen in many areas
 
of endeavour, as the bias tends to get more significant as one
 
approaches tbe most exceptional levels of achievement.
 
 
In the end statistical analysis of the relative merits of different
 
groups of humans is interesting but it says nothing about the ability of
 
a particular individual human to achieve. Just because men dominate in positions
 
of political power does not mean that any given man is suitable for
 
public office.
 
 
The title of this article may seem incendiary and may have caused some
 
people to become angry. The title is of course a pun. Men are
 
exceptional - but this means that men are over-represented among the
 
most successful people in society but also over-represened among the
 
least successful people in society. The title is offered as proof that
 
Hanna Rosin, author of "The End of Men" and "Men are Obsolete" is not
 
the only person who an write articles with provocative titles.
 
 
 
A commentation on AVFM suggested that history can be explained as
 
families trying to retain power and that powerful families will allow
 
the most competent member to generally take positions of authority. The
 
fact that the bulk of such positions were taken by men can be explained
 
by understanding that men are more likely to engage in risky behaviour
 
and vary more than women. It is likely that the most and least
 
competent members of the family will be men.
 
 
I recided not to post this to reddit:
 
 
This may still leave you wondering why most of the top roles are held by
 
men and not women. I am currently writing an article that aims to
 
answer that and several other questions about observed differences
 
between men and women. At the risk of slightly pre-empting my own
 
article, two of the main differences between men and women are the
 
greater tendency of men to engage in risky behaviour, and the the
 
tendency for men to vary more than women in measurable characteristics
 
(surprising as this might be, this idea is now backed by solid data).
 
 
The upshot here is that if you have a group of people who are competing for top roles the most capable and the most likely
 
to take calculated risks will tend to win out overall. In many cases we can expect more men than women to be among the
 
over-achievers and among the under-achievers. But the top roles are taken by the over-achievers, who are more likely to be
 
men. As such it is important that we guarantee humans ''equality of opportunity'' but avoid using quotas to guarantee
 
''equality of outcome''.
 
 
[[Category: Draft Articles]]
 

Latest revision as of 04:58, 23 June 2019

Men and women vary in many ways. The debate has raged for a long time about whether this is more likely to be a result of nature or nurture. Some feminist groups tend to maintain that the differences are socialised and thus very much within the nurture camp. Recent research has shown that there are fundamental differences between human males and females, and that behavioural differences are evident even a few days after birth. So while some differences are certainly socialised we cannot any longer ignore or dismiss the fundamental differences that exist between human males and females.

It is the thesis of this article that a large proportion of observed differences between male and female life outcomes can be explained with reference to only one difference: variance. Men tend to vary in characteristics more than women. This has been shown to be true for all characteristics that have been studied and there is good evidence to suggest it is generally true.[1] This is often known as Greater Male Variability or the variability hypothesis although it would perhaps be better called a theory now as evidence builds. It is notable that this notion fell out of favour as a result of the activities of feminists in academia.[2].

Men vary more in height, weight and many other physical characteristics. While the average intelligence of men and women are the same or almost the same what is clear is that males vary more than females in intelligence.[3] This means that a majority of people with high IQs will be men as will a majority of people with a low IQ. The further we get from the mean the more pronounced this phenomenon is. Astoundingly, greater variance among men even appears to be true when it comes to personality.[4]

Everywhere we go we see the same trend. Men tending to dominate at the top of society with other men tending to fall to the bottom of society, with a smaller group of men and most women clustered in the middle.

When the females of a species invest significantly more energy in to gestation than males, as is the case for humans, then the size of the next generation is largely constrained by the number of fertile females. As a result of this a species can generally tolerate the loss of a male more easily than the loss of a female. It thus makes sense for a species to allow males to vary more in their characteristics. If a characteristic is disadvantageous to a species then the loss of males will be less damaging than the loss of females. If a characteristic is advantageous it can be spread to the rest of the species. Thus testing new characteristics on males is an advantage to a species overall and so we find men vary in their characteristics more than women. In effect the loss of women will constrain the size of the next generation, the loss of men will constrain genetic diversity. This does not justify male disposability though. Even if men were biologically disposable in the past, they no longer need to be. The Earth carries more than seven billion people today and could be carrying 10 or 11 billion within a few decades. We no longer need the ability to rapidly recover numbers, thus any presumed bias towards male disposability that existed in the past no longer applies.

Among humans the greater variance among men leads to significant implications for society. These tendencies have a widespread and profound impact on the human species and human civilisation and go a very long way to explaining the observed differences between men and women in terms of life choices and outcomes.

Since men vary more in characteristics it follows that they will be over-represented among the highest achievers in many areas. The lowest achievers in an area, those not suitable for employment or endeavour in that area, will generally choose to not work in that area. As a result when we look at most areas of achievement we should see the highest levels dominated by men with the rest of the men in the field and most women among those who perform in the field competently but without great distinction. If the highest achievers in a field are mostly men then we should expect the highest paid members of the field to be mostly men too.

A particularly notable area is scientific achievement which has been overwhelmingly conducted by men. Some argue that female scientists have been marginalised and their accomplishments attributed to men. That may be true in some cases but the reverse is true also. Marie Curie is often remembered for conducting ground breaking research in to radioactivity. Most know her name, but few know that she collaborated with two other scientists for this work - her husband Pierre Curie and Henri Becquerel. Marie was actually the junior of the three scientists. Despite this she is often believed by the wider community to have made significant discoveries on her own with the efforts of her husband and Becquerel forgotten. Both Marie and Pierre were responsible for the discovery of Polonium and Radium although today these discoveries are often attributed to Marie alone.

In medicine, more than half of all doctors are women but they tend to become general practitioners. Most specialists are men. A good example is surgery. A surgeon needs to be intelligent, to have achieved both a medical degree and to have passed in this demanding speciality. But that isn't sufficient. A surgeon needs an exceptionally steady hand and good manual dexterity - this cannot be taught. An individual either has these characteristics or they do not.[5] Even if we ignore other contributing factors the greater variance among men in intelligence, manual dexterity and endurance should lead to the conclusion that most surgeons will be men.

Business and political leaders are overwhelmingly men. Just as with scientific endeavour, men will dominate among those who are over-achievers in business with other men and most women performing competently.

Evidence suggests that men have always dominated among societies leaders. This is reflected in the modern world with men dominating among politicians in every country today except Rwanda. Rwanda is an exception because men were overwhelmingly the victims of the Rwanda Genocide and even today constitute only 46.5% of the population.[6]

Since men vary more in personality, in capabilities, and are over-represented among those with low IQ it follows that men should be over-represented among those who are anti-social, have difficulty fitting in and following societies rules. These are precisely the people most likely to commit offences and be imprisoned. This is what we do see in societies around the world.

It should be noted that all else being equal men are more likely to be charged with an offence, more likely to be convicted of an offence, and if they are convicted they are more likely to be incarcerated and will on average serve a significantly longer sentence. This is all true even when the circumstances surrounding the offence are substantially similar. Thus the higher proportion of male prison inmates cannot be explained by variance alone and is a function of institutional bias against men in the judicial system of many countries.

The vast majority of composers are men.[7] Music composition shows the same pattern that we see in other areas of endeavour. Those who have little or only average capabilities in music composition will not generally pursue this as a career. In contrast those who excel at music composition will pursue it as a career. Similarly, the majority of musicians are men. Many orchestras have around 25-30% female participation.[8] We should see the greatest domination by men in areas where individuality is most important. Among all areas of music the greatest gender disparity exists in jazz. This is also the area of music where individuality is most important, with the high emphasis on creativity and improvisation.

A notable area dominated by men is the game of chess. Chess is notable because it does not require physical strength, manual dexterity or any physical characteristics other than the ability to communicate. Chess does not require any knowledge other than knowledge of chess. Even having a high IQ is not a guarantee of success in chess. Like many fields of endeavour hard work and commitment are necessary along with innate ability. Having said that, chess is perhaps the purest example of exceptionality we have. The vast majority of chess grand masters are men.

Men even dominate in knowledge based game shows.[9]

It is a reasonably obvious position to claim that employers will generally want to employ people who can perform the work involved in that job to a reasonable standard. It can often be difficult to differentiate people who would be exceptional at performing the work. The bottom few percent of the population (as measured by job specific capability) will be the ones most likely to be unable to obtain employment. The bottom few percent of the population will be dominated by men. Thus, based on gender variance alone we may expect men to have a higher unemployment rate than women.

Quite a lot has been made of the y-chromosome of late. Claims are made that it is small, broken and inadequate. This is just more casual misandry. Those making statements like this have, at least, a fundamentally flawed view of human sexual selection and genetics. The y-chromosome is the basis of the exceptionality of men. It destabilises human genetics, which is precisely what you need to have exceptional individuals. It is why more male foetuses abort but it is also why there are more male Nobel prize winners, and great poets. Many of those denigrating the y-chromosome are ignoring the evidence right in front of their eyes.

This article has discussed the notion of greater variation, the negative and positive consequences of this and how they explain many of the historical trends observed. History is replete with powerful, famous and successful women but they were typically a minority.

The notion of greater variance among men has been discussed for decades and is, perhaps not surprisingly, not popular in feminist discourse. In 2005 Lawrence Summers, then the president of Harvard University, speculated on greater variance among men and the resultant domination of certain fields, particularly physical sciences, by men. Despite the fact that he made it clear that he was not criticising the suitability of women to physical sciences, he was publicly castigated and was subsequently the subject of a no-confidence motion by a faculty at Harvard. Harvard subsequently launched various initiatives to advance women in academia over the following months. It is likely that Summers innocent comments on gender variance and the subsequent outrage were major contributors to his resignation the following year.

In the end statistical analysis of the relative merits of different groups of humans is interesting but it says nothing about the ability of a particular individual human to achieve. Just because men dominate in a particular field does not mean that any given man is able to achieve in that field and it does not mean that any given woman cannot achieve in that field.

The title of this article may seem incendiary and may have caused some people to become angry. The title is of course a pun. Men are exceptional - but this means that men are over-represented among the most successful people in society but also over-represented among the least successful people in society. The title is offered as proof that Hanna Rosin, author of "The End of Men" and "Men are Obsolete" is not the only person who can write articles with provocative titles.

In general if you have a group of people who are competing on equal terms for top roles the most capable will be most likely to gain these roles. In many cases we can expect more men than women to be among the over-achievers and among the under-achievers. But the top roles are taken by the over-achievers, who are more likely to be men.

It should be noted that nothing in this article should be taken as being negative towards women. Women and men are needed for a properly functioning society. This article should also not be construed as suggesting that women cannot achieve at the highest levels. An individual is not constrained by the norms for their gender. Just because there are fewer women at the highest levels of achievement in many areas does not mean, in general, that a particular woman cannot be the best at what they do. It does mean though that most areas of achievement will be dominated by men. In many ways, men represent the best and worst of humanity.

External Links

References