Good News: It ain't patriarchy . . .
Denis Dutton Website
. . . it just seems that way because men are expendable!
Hat tip to Malcolm Pollack, a non-expendable gentleman, who pointed the way to an insightful piece by Roy F. Baumeister on gender differences, "Is There Anything Good About Men?" The answer is "Yes," but not in the same way as women are:
[T]here are two different ways of being social. In social psychology we tend to emphasize close, intimate relationships, and yes, perhaps women specialize in those and are better at them than men. But one can also look at being social in terms of having larger networks of shallower relationships, and on these, perhaps, men are more social than women . . . [so] the reason for the emergence of gender inequality may have little to do with men pushing women down in some dubious patriarchal conspiracy. Rather, it came from the fact that wealth, knowledge, and power were created in the men's sphere. This is what pushed the men's sphere ahead. Not oppression . . . . Men are social too - just in a different way . . . . [C]ulture relies on men to create the large social structures that comprise it. Our society is made up of institutions such as universities, governments, corporations. Most of these were founded and built up by men. Again, this probably had less to do with women being oppressed or whatever and more to do with men being motivated to form large networks of shallow relationships. Men are much more interested than women in forming large groups and working in them and rising to the top in them . . . . [M]en create the kind of social networks where individuals are replaceable and expendable. Women favor the kind of relationships in which each person is precious and cannot truly be replaced.Why? Because the heart goes on even with the loss of men, i.e., a population can survive the loss of men but not the loss of women.
We might even live out that fact in our demographically uncertain future . . .