The Second Chapter of Part 1 - Warriors:
"No better allies exist than other young men. Between 18 and 25 years of age, men are at the height of their physical strength and athletic prowess. They run faster, jump longer and higher, and throw farther."
Accordingly, physical strength and fighting capacity peak during this period.
"I believe that growing up male requires making the transition from reliance on families to dependence on unrelated peers."
Thus, male development involves a reorientation away from family dependence toward reliance on same-sex peer groups.
"All children need adults to keep them alive. Parents usually are the adults willing to invest most heavily in a child. Biology ensures that the child responds by forming strong emotional attachments to the people who give the child the most help.
Accordingly, physical strength and fighting capacity peak during this period.
"I believe that growing up male requires making the transition from reliance on families to dependence on unrelated peers."
Thus, male development involves a reorientation away from family dependence toward reliance on same-sex peer groups.
"All children need adults to keep them alive. Parents usually are the adults willing to invest most heavily in a child. Biology ensures that the child responds by forming strong emotional attachments to the people who give the child the most help.
But as boys develop and become more self-sufficient, they need to move away from their parents emotionally and physically. From the perspective of warfare, it makes sense to head toward other males of the same age, leaving parents, siblings, and relatives of a different age and sex behind. In my research and observation, I have found that young boys’ biology propels them toward other young boys. They learn to trust other young males more than any other members of their community, including parents.
Together, they will grow up and reach the height of their physical strength and skills. Together, they will make the most effective fighting force and maximize not only their own but also their families’ and their whole community’s chances of survival.
Thus, cooperation among same-sex peers is essential not only for individual survival but for the survival of kin and community.
"Informally, one of the easiest ways to see the way boys break away from adults is to visit a school just before outdoor play time. Large clumps of boys will begin emerging from the doors. As fast as possible, they distance themselves from the school and the teachers and the girls. Then, they start play fighting, enemy enactments, or group-based competitive sports and games."
This behavior contrasts with the behavior of girls:
"Girls often linger in the classroom, talking with teachers, female relatives of different ages, or one or two selected friends."
According to Benenson, boys may even be more social than girls:
"Meanwhile, the boys are off having a great time playing with other boys. Despite stereotypes to the contrary, my observations suggest that it is the boys who invest more time, effort, and energy in their relations with one another ... From early in life, boys possess highly social tendencies that permit rapid formation of relationships with other boys."
"Traditional agricultural societies deal with this conflict by allowing boys to roam far from home, while girls help their mothers with housework and child care."
Boys often exert a disruptive influence on the family environment:
"They are more likely to disrupt the lives of the keepers of the ordered family world, such as mothers, teachers, and even female peers. But they delight in one another’s company."
Thus, boys inhabit two different worlds:
Benenson then elaborates three core principles:
Principle 1: Escape with Your Peers
"Literature, as is often the case, provides a colorful window into this first principle. What happens to boys and girls when their parents are missing? Books that describe the lives of young orphaned boys are much more lively and interesting than books that describe orphaned girls. An orphaned girl is a lonely individual confronting tough times. Madeline, in Ludwig Bemelmans’s charming French stories, is probably the most famous orphaned girl. She lives in an orphanage run by nuns with rigid rules and almost no social interaction. In Bemelman’s first classic book, Madeline has her appendix removed. In the second, she is rescued from drowning by a dog. These are frightening stories about a vulnerable girl. Contrast that with The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Tom lives with his aunt, half-brother, and cousin. He goes from one exciting episode to another with his closest friend, Huckleberry Finn. In doing so, he meets a host of other boys and one wicked murderer. The stories are about an enterprising and courageous boy. There are many books like this. In James and the Giant Peach, James escapes his horrid aunts in a giant peach. The peach fills with exotic and friendly characters who fight off angry sharks and men in the clouds and eventually winds up as a beautiful mansion in New York City. Harry Potter finds himself at Hogwarts surrounded by close friends and one unspeakably evil enemy. Orphaned boys live the ideal life: no parents, just other boys, a distant caregiver, and one or more unmistakably evil enemies. At the end of these books, no one feels sorry for the orphan. Quite the contrary, many wish they too could live his life. Surrounded by friends, with clear enemies, life sounds idyllic. No one is worried about rupturing an appendix or drowning—or being lonely.
These status differences persist into adulthood:
"In adulthood, men are higher-ranked than women in virtually every society that has been studied. This is true for the most egalitarian hunter-gatherers, the Hadza of Tanzania, where the women are highly independent. It is even true for societies with matrilineal inheritance, where property gets passed down from mother to daughter, not from father to son as is usually the case. In these matrilineal societies, it’s not the women who have the highest status in the community, however, but their brothers. Men generally hold higher-status occupations, hold higher-status positions within the same occupation, and receive more pay for the same position."
Nevertheless, under certain conditions, girls may be accepted as peers:
Third, in very rich and liberal Western classrooms where teachers may demand that children of both sexes engage in the same activities, boys show greater tolerance of girls. I suggest this is because the adults in these communities don’t expect their sons to need to fight a war. In such a case, it is probably true for men as well. When military service is unlikely, and wives demand that their husbands share child care and household responsibilities, men almost certainly show greater tolerance of women. When the possibility of serving in the military looms, however, I would guess that the basic pattern reappears."
In essence, Benenson contends that male-only cohesion maximizes military effectiveness:
"... if boys who will grow into young men want to form the most effective fighting force, exclusion of girls, and later young women, makes sense. A military unit composed of all young men will be physically stronger than one that contains women too. There are reasons for including women in military roles, but from a purely physical standpoint, men are far bigger, stronger, more athletic, and more energetic. Further, the intuitive camaraderie that brings boys together early allows them to build experience negotiating with and relying on one another for support. Unless a girl is a tomboy and has been allowed to practice with the boys, not only will she almost certainly be less physically strong, but she also will have much more difficulty learning how to get along with others. This would be detrimental to success. A military unit must be cohesive or it will lose."
One question remains, leading directly to the third point:
"One puzzle remains. Why do high-ranked boys bully lower-ranked ones, and lower-ranked boys bully girls?"
Principle 3: Military Material Only, Please
"It’s not enough to assemble a group of like-minded boys, far from their families and girls, in order to create an efficient fighting force. The fighting force must be the best it can be. Some discrimination is necessary to maximize the chances of success. What characteristics in a boy make him a good fighter? It is precisely those characteristics should appeal most to boys when they select their male friends."
The selection criteria are outlined below.
Physical Toughness
"Few traits are more valuable in a physical fight than being big, strong, athletic, and energetic. Even before they are born, boys are bigger and more energetic than girls."
Boys and men prefer the company of strong companions:
"Boys and young men are attracted most to boys who exhibit just the skills that would be invaluable in a fighter. Little boys, older boys in middle childhood, and adolescent boys prefer to be friends with the physically strongest, tallest, and most athletic boys around. This preference continues throughout life and across the world. As anyone who has attended Western elementary, junior high, and senior high schools knows, the tallest, strongest, most athletic boys are respected not only by the girls but also by the other boys. Tall, strong men are admired most by other men even in the simplest of hunter-gatherer societies. In the most modern societies, men are more likely to employ physically taller and more energetic male peers over shorter and less energetic ones. As education increases and the need for physical skills decreases, the value of physical strength diminishes, but even then it doesn’t disappear."
Why, then, are boys and men so drawn to strong peers?
"What makes boys’ and men’s preference for physically strong male peers so fascinating is that these are just the peers who provide the most competition. Why should boys and men be so attracted to peers who might be superior to them? Don’t boys and men want to dominate everyone else? The only answer that makes sense to me is that boys and men desire to form the physically strongest group possible. That way, they can have the best chances of defeating another group. One physically strong and nimble group member can determine the outcome for the whole group."
This preference contrasts with female peer preferences:
"This desire to associate with the physically toughest males makes human males unique compared with males of other species, and compared with human females. Few girls or women care how physically strong their female friend is. Yet, a boy or man, given the chance, will stick closely to the strongest and most athletically talented male around."
Emotional Toughness
"What other traits might aid in the war effort? Emotions have been studied around the world. And, around the world, men express emotions less often and with less intensity than women do. This is especially true for fear and sadness. The only exception is anger, which is typically associated with aggression. However, there is no evidence that boys or men actually feel angrier than girls or women.
Coolness is highly regarded, while emotional “uncoolness” is derogated:
"Boys expect each other to be emotionally muted. By age 6, they value other boys who are emotionally cool. Even in early childhood, boys who cannot control strong emotions are often insulted by being called girls or gay—two inferior types in boys’ minds. Being cool is an important part of boys’ intuitive measuring stick for manliness. I suggest that “manliness” means the type of individual one would want next to you when the enemy attacks."
Unconstrained emotional expression is often problematic for boys and men:
Obedience to Rules
Rules are essential for group functioning:
If a boy is genetically programmed to practice behaviors that will help him fight wars, he will need to begin early to identify and cultivate effective allies. He should favor male peers over anyone else. This is what the evidence shows."
Thus, cooperation among same-sex peers is essential not only for individual survival but for the survival of kin and community.
"Informally, one of the easiest ways to see the way boys break away from adults is to visit a school just before outdoor play time. Large clumps of boys will begin emerging from the doors. As fast as possible, they distance themselves from the school and the teachers and the girls. Then, they start play fighting, enemy enactments, or group-based competitive sports and games."
This behavior contrasts with the behavior of girls:
"Girls often linger in the classroom, talking with teachers, female relatives of different ages, or one or two selected friends."
According to Benenson, boys may even be more social than girls:
"Meanwhile, the boys are off having a great time playing with other boys. Despite stereotypes to the contrary, my observations suggest that it is the boys who invest more time, effort, and energy in their relations with one another ... From early in life, boys possess highly social tendencies that permit rapid formation of relationships with other boys."
From early childhood onward, a tension emerges between family-based order and peer-driven conflict:
"Early in life, the existence of male peers will incite conflict for a boy. Families, particularly mothers and other caregivers, promote order and peace. But boys want to play fight and compete against enemies. ... Boys spend their time chasing and wrestling one another; fighting predators, villains, and aliens; and competing against each other. They invariably trample the girls who are cooking, caring for babies, dressing up as princesses, and following teachers’ directives."
"Traditional agricultural societies deal with this conflict by allowing boys to roam far from home, while girls help their mothers with housework and child care."
Boys often exert a disruptive influence on the family environment:
"They are more likely to disrupt the lives of the keepers of the ordered family world, such as mothers, teachers, and even female peers. But they delight in one another’s company."
Thus, boys inhabit two different worlds:
"Young boys thus inhabit a dual world. In one world are mothers and other caregivers, who ensure their survival and restrain tendencies to aggression. In the other world are male peers, who share a very different agenda. Eleanor Maccoby pointed out, the more boys there are, the more the conflict grows between the civilian world of mothers and other caregivers, and the military world of play fighting, enemies, and competition."
Time away from mothers appears to be essential for the development of male-typical behaviors, particularly play-fighting:
"This was probably Freud’s most famous insight: Boys must break away from their mothers if they want to become traditional men and practice warfare-like behaviors. When boys spend more time with mothers, they are restrained in their play fighting, enemy targeting, and intergroup competitions. To gain the freedom to practice fighting, targeting enemies, and competing, they have to spend time with each other. This requires physically and psychologically separating themselves from caregivers, particularly mothers and other women. The farther a boy distances himself from adults, the more experience he has with male activities."
Benenson further argues that single-mother households are associated with higher levels of male aggression:
"Boys raised by single mothers become especially aggressive."
To summarize the arguments above:
"boys will practice play fighting, enemy detection, and one-on-one competition with their male peers unless they are restrained by the presence of caring and relatively stress-free mothers or other relatives or caring adults. Both socialization and biology likely together determine to what extent a boy becomes a part of the civilian versus military life. Nonetheless, some boys seem more ready to join their male peers in play fighting, enemy targeting, and intergroup competitions regardless of the environment."
Additionally, Benenson argues that day care is associated with increased aggression in boys:
"In Western cultures, it is no surprise that boys sent to day care behave more aggressively than those under the watchful eye of female relatives. This is a primary finding of an extensive project examining the effects of day care on children. ... Results from this study indicated that children who were put into a center-based day care had higher rates of aggression and disruptiveness when they started primary school. As they progress through primary school, however, children who attended day care become indistinguishable from children who were raised in more maternal environments.
Time away from mothers appears to be essential for the development of male-typical behaviors, particularly play-fighting:
"This was probably Freud’s most famous insight: Boys must break away from their mothers if they want to become traditional men and practice warfare-like behaviors. When boys spend more time with mothers, they are restrained in their play fighting, enemy targeting, and intergroup competitions. To gain the freedom to practice fighting, targeting enemies, and competing, they have to spend time with each other. This requires physically and psychologically separating themselves from caregivers, particularly mothers and other women. The farther a boy distances himself from adults, the more experience he has with male activities."
Benenson further argues that single-mother households are associated with higher levels of male aggression:
"Boys raised by single mothers become especially aggressive."
To summarize the arguments above:
"boys will practice play fighting, enemy detection, and one-on-one competition with their male peers unless they are restrained by the presence of caring and relatively stress-free mothers or other relatives or caring adults. Both socialization and biology likely together determine to what extent a boy becomes a part of the civilian versus military life. Nonetheless, some boys seem more ready to join their male peers in play fighting, enemy targeting, and intergroup competitions regardless of the environment."
Additionally, Benenson argues that day care is associated with increased aggression in boys:
"In Western cultures, it is no surprise that boys sent to day care behave more aggressively than those under the watchful eye of female relatives. This is a primary finding of an extensive project examining the effects of day care on children. ... Results from this study indicated that children who were put into a center-based day care had higher rates of aggression and disruptiveness when they started primary school. As they progress through primary school, however, children who attended day care become indistinguishable from children who were raised in more maternal environments.
This seems reassuring initially, but the real story is more complicated. What happens is that when children who have been in day care enter primary school, the other children in the class become more aggressive. In fact, the more children there are in a primary school classroom who have been in center-based day care, the more aggressive everyone in the class becomes."
When, then, does aggressive behavior emerge in boys?
"While aggression increases in both boys and girls, boys are so much more physically aggressive than girls by the end of infancy that their aggression is far more noticeable and disruptive."
Exposure to male peers appears to increase aggressive behavior in boys:
"Even boys from very stable families become more aggressive if they go to preschool. The same effect occurs with older boys. When well-intentioned psychologists attempted to reduce aggression by partner- ing aggressive boys with nonaggressive boys, the study backfired: All the boys came out more aggressive. Male aggression blossoms around male peers if no adult counters their influence."
Benenson suggests a genetic factor that leads boys and men to socialize in ways that facilitate the formation of groups of warriors:
"I propose that over the course of evolution, human genes have been selected to create males who are efficient cooperative fighters. Genes accomplish this by instilling intuitive interactive styles in boys and men that girls and women don’t have. Boys and men like interacting in ways that will allow them to quickly form a group of fighters.
When, then, does aggressive behavior emerge in boys?
"While aggression increases in both boys and girls, boys are so much more physically aggressive than girls by the end of infancy that their aggression is far more noticeable and disruptive."
Exposure to male peers appears to increase aggressive behavior in boys:
"Even boys from very stable families become more aggressive if they go to preschool. The same effect occurs with older boys. When well-intentioned psychologists attempted to reduce aggression by partner- ing aggressive boys with nonaggressive boys, the study backfired: All the boys came out more aggressive. Male aggression blossoms around male peers if no adult counters their influence."
Benenson suggests a genetic factor that leads boys and men to socialize in ways that facilitate the formation of groups of warriors:
"I propose that over the course of evolution, human genes have been selected to create males who are efficient cooperative fighters. Genes accomplish this by instilling intuitive interactive styles in boys and men that girls and women don’t have. Boys and men like interacting in ways that will allow them to quickly form a group of fighters.
What kinds of social intuitions might these be? Three core tendencies stand out. The first is that a boy should separate himself from parents and other adult caretakers. The second pushes a boy to select male over female peers. The third promotes interaction with boys who would make valuable fighting allies and rejection of boys who would not. Parents in societies where warfare seems distant often bemoan the faithfulness with which most boys follow these three principles. But these social preferences allow the formation of efficient bonds between boys who will be most able to cooperate successfully to defeat an enemy. I believe that in the past, and even now, this has meant the difference between survival and death of a community."
Benenson then elaborates three core principles:
Principle 1: Escape with Your Peers
"Literature, as is often the case, provides a colorful window into this first principle. What happens to boys and girls when their parents are missing? Books that describe the lives of young orphaned boys are much more lively and interesting than books that describe orphaned girls. An orphaned girl is a lonely individual confronting tough times. Madeline, in Ludwig Bemelmans’s charming French stories, is probably the most famous orphaned girl. She lives in an orphanage run by nuns with rigid rules and almost no social interaction. In Bemelman’s first classic book, Madeline has her appendix removed. In the second, she is rescued from drowning by a dog. These are frightening stories about a vulnerable girl. Contrast that with The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. Tom lives with his aunt, half-brother, and cousin. He goes from one exciting episode to another with his closest friend, Huckleberry Finn. In doing so, he meets a host of other boys and one wicked murderer. The stories are about an enterprising and courageous boy. There are many books like this. In James and the Giant Peach, James escapes his horrid aunts in a giant peach. The peach fills with exotic and friendly characters who fight off angry sharks and men in the clouds and eventually winds up as a beautiful mansion in New York City. Harry Potter finds himself at Hogwarts surrounded by close friends and one unspeakably evil enemy. Orphaned boys live the ideal life: no parents, just other boys, a distant caregiver, and one or more unmistakably evil enemies. At the end of these books, no one feels sorry for the orphan. Quite the contrary, many wish they too could live his life. Surrounded by friends, with clear enemies, life sounds idyllic. No one is worried about rupturing an appendix or drowning—or being lonely.
What literature suggests, anthropology has confirmed around the world. Universally, boys prefer to remain with boys of the same age and away from others, especially adult caregivers. In many traditional societies, boys herd animals, hunt small game, or simply play together in fields, forests, or playgrounds, while girls are typically found helping their mothers with child minding and household responsibilities."
Here again, Benenson argues that boys rely more on peers than girls:
"boys rely on peers more than girls do. To determine whether they do, my colleagues and I asked Belgian children, adolescents, and adults whether family or friends are better sources of help. At every age, compared with girls and women, boys and men thought that friends would be more useful than parents. In contrast, girls and women thought that parents would be just as helpful as friends."
Nevertheless, some boys have difficulty integrating into peer groups:
"a boy who has trouble following the rules of his peer group is likely to have real problems. Since the 1980s, many researchers have tried to figure out why some children cannot get along well with their peers. No one knows for sure. Some early findings suggest, however, that for many troubled boys, their problems stem from difficulties following the rules of their peers."
Failure to get along well with one’s peer group can have serious consequences:
Principle 2: No Girls Allowed
"Most young primates, when they are capable of play with others, prefer to spend time with others of the same sex. Humans are no exception: Segregation by sex starts very early in life. In traditional societies like those in Liberia, Kenya, India, Mexico, the Philippines, and Okinawa, where little formal schooling exists, young boys spend more time with other boys than with girls. In Japan, China, and Bali, among Australian Aborigines and the Navajo and Hopi in Arizona, and even in a school for the blind in the United States, children segregate themselves by sex as early as age 2. The same occurs in hunter-gatherer societies, like the !Kung bushmen or the Hadza, as long as enough play partners of the same sex are available.
Here again, Benenson argues that boys rely more on peers than girls:
"boys rely on peers more than girls do. To determine whether they do, my colleagues and I asked Belgian children, adolescents, and adults whether family or friends are better sources of help. At every age, compared with girls and women, boys and men thought that friends would be more useful than parents. In contrast, girls and women thought that parents would be just as helpful as friends."
Nevertheless, some boys have difficulty integrating into peer groups:
"a boy who has trouble following the rules of his peer group is likely to have real problems. Since the 1980s, many researchers have tried to figure out why some children cannot get along well with their peers. No one knows for sure. Some early findings suggest, however, that for many troubled boys, their problems stem from difficulties following the rules of their peers."
Failure to get along well with one’s peer group can have serious consequences:
"What distinguished those who engaged in bad conduct in the military from those who did well? It turned out that the key difference was how well they got along with the other boys in school. Those boys who later engaged in bad conduct in the military were described as not listening to their peers, being mean and hurtful, and showing explosive behavior toward other boys. Whether they behaved respectfully toward teachers didn’t make a difference. In contrast, those boys who as men served with honor in the military had gotten along well with the other boys in school, despite their other problems. In fact, how well a boy gets along with his male peers even predicts other types of severe psychological problems that develop in the military."
Principle 2: No Girls Allowed
"Most young primates, when they are capable of play with others, prefer to spend time with others of the same sex. Humans are no exception: Segregation by sex starts very early in life. In traditional societies like those in Liberia, Kenya, India, Mexico, the Philippines, and Okinawa, where little formal schooling exists, young boys spend more time with other boys than with girls. In Japan, China, and Bali, among Australian Aborigines and the Navajo and Hopi in Arizona, and even in a school for the blind in the United States, children segregate themselves by sex as early as age 2. The same occurs in hunter-gatherer societies, like the !Kung bushmen or the Hadza, as long as enough play partners of the same sex are available.
Girls also end up playing with girls. But sex segregation is much stronger for boys. Boys really want to play with other boys; girls like to play with both girls and boys. The same asymmetry holds for men and women, unless sexual relations are involved. Men share more leisure activities with one another than women do, just as they always have played sports together more than women have.
What drives this difference? One of the most immediate causes is simply that boys get so much pleasure from playing with other boys. This is much less so for girls. To look at this objectively, my students and I went to preschool and kindergarten classrooms and created groups of six children of the same sex. All the children in each group told us they were friends with each other. The children were free to play however they wished. Later, we asked some neutral observers to watch the videotapes of the children’s play and rate how much pleasure each group seemed to have. The observers rated the boys’ groups as enjoying themselves more than the girls’ groups. They pointed out the spontaneity, enthusiasm, and sheer delight in one another’s company exhibited by the boys. The girls, in contrast, appeared nervous and uncomfortable, seemingly waiting for an adult to appear to organize a structured task.
I believe that girls need to be really close friends, almost like family, in order to relax in one another’s company. Boys enjoy themselves more easily, even when they are not close friends. Thus, in my study with the three identical houses, when we chose a random same-sex peer from the classroom, boys were more likely than girls to play with the peer."
Dominance plays a central role in male social behavior:
Girls tend to have difficulty prevailing over boys in direct, head-to-head competition:
"Boys remain dominant as they grow older, even when physical force is not an issue. Strikingly, there is evidence that boys will outperform girls in competitive athletic and academic activities—even when girls are more talented. In a classic study of 9- to 11-year-old African American children from Chicago playing in a dodgeball tournament, the researchers divided the children into four teams based on their dodgeball skills: highly skilled boys, highly skilled girls, low-skilled boys, and low-skilled girls. The boys always beat the girls. Even the least-skilled boys beat the most-skilled girls. Because the researchers thought that the highly skilled female dodge-ball players may simply have been afraid of the boys’ physical strength, they repeated the study with another set of girls and boys and had them compete in a spelling bee. The results were identical. When the highly skilled girls faced the poor-spelling boys, the boys still won. In modern societies with laws protecting girls, girls now outperform boys in schoolwork. Nonetheless, it remains difficult for a female to beat a male in a head-to-head competition."
Dominance plays a central role in male social behavior:
"Boys and men not only stay away from girls and women, and often insult and assault them, but also dominate them. In fact, in most species of mammals, males generally outrank females. This is true for humans also. This difference in status begins in toddlerhood, even in the most modern of cultures. In one study, two unfamiliar toddlers together dressed in gender-neutral clothing came to a psychology laboratory with their mothers. Right from the start, the young boys were rough and paid little attention to young girls. Often, a male toddler literally ran over a female toddler in his rush to get a toy. Boys didn’t pay attention, even when asked something by a young girl. The female toddlers actually ran away from the male toddlers. ..."
Girls tend to have difficulty prevailing over boys in direct, head-to-head competition:
"Boys remain dominant as they grow older, even when physical force is not an issue. Strikingly, there is evidence that boys will outperform girls in competitive athletic and academic activities—even when girls are more talented. In a classic study of 9- to 11-year-old African American children from Chicago playing in a dodgeball tournament, the researchers divided the children into four teams based on their dodgeball skills: highly skilled boys, highly skilled girls, low-skilled boys, and low-skilled girls. The boys always beat the girls. Even the least-skilled boys beat the most-skilled girls. Because the researchers thought that the highly skilled female dodge-ball players may simply have been afraid of the boys’ physical strength, they repeated the study with another set of girls and boys and had them compete in a spelling bee. The results were identical. When the highly skilled girls faced the poor-spelling boys, the boys still won. In modern societies with laws protecting girls, girls now outperform boys in schoolwork. Nonetheless, it remains difficult for a female to beat a male in a head-to-head competition."
These status differences persist into adulthood:
"In adulthood, men are higher-ranked than women in virtually every society that has been studied. This is true for the most egalitarian hunter-gatherers, the Hadza of Tanzania, where the women are highly independent. It is even true for societies with matrilineal inheritance, where property gets passed down from mother to daughter, not from father to son as is usually the case. In these matrilineal societies, it’s not the women who have the highest status in the community, however, but their brothers. Men generally hold higher-status occupations, hold higher-status positions within the same occupation, and receive more pay for the same position."
Nevertheless, under certain conditions, girls may be accepted as peers:
"Boys will accept girls under a few conditions. First, girls who can pass for boys are tolerated. Boys will accept tomboys. These girls often prefer the company of boys over girls, enjoy direct competition, and might even fight physically. While they still are likely to be relegated to inferior roles, they can take part in boys’ activities.
Second, boys also will play with girls when they have little other choice. This often happens in sparsely populated neighborhoods or in small communities with few children, such as hunter-gatherer bands. The
same holds for men. A woman who is willing to play by men’s rules can work closely with men or even run a company. Likewise in the military, when few male recruits are available, as in Israel with its small population or the United States after compulsory military service ended, women can join.
Third, in very rich and liberal Western classrooms where teachers may demand that children of both sexes engage in the same activities, boys show greater tolerance of girls. I suggest this is because the adults in these communities don’t expect their sons to need to fight a war. In such a case, it is probably true for men as well. When military service is unlikely, and wives demand that their husbands share child care and household responsibilities, men almost certainly show greater tolerance of women. When the possibility of serving in the military looms, however, I would guess that the basic pattern reappears."
In essence, Benenson contends that male-only cohesion maximizes military effectiveness:
"... if boys who will grow into young men want to form the most effective fighting force, exclusion of girls, and later young women, makes sense. A military unit composed of all young men will be physically stronger than one that contains women too. There are reasons for including women in military roles, but from a purely physical standpoint, men are far bigger, stronger, more athletic, and more energetic. Further, the intuitive camaraderie that brings boys together early allows them to build experience negotiating with and relying on one another for support. Unless a girl is a tomboy and has been allowed to practice with the boys, not only will she almost certainly be less physically strong, but she also will have much more difficulty learning how to get along with others. This would be detrimental to success. A military unit must be cohesive or it will lose."
One question remains, leading directly to the third point:
"One puzzle remains. Why do high-ranked boys bully lower-ranked ones, and lower-ranked boys bully girls?"
Principle 3: Military Material Only, Please
"It’s not enough to assemble a group of like-minded boys, far from their families and girls, in order to create an efficient fighting force. The fighting force must be the best it can be. Some discrimination is necessary to maximize the chances of success. What characteristics in a boy make him a good fighter? It is precisely those characteristics should appeal most to boys when they select their male friends."
The selection criteria are outlined below.
Physical Toughness
"Few traits are more valuable in a physical fight than being big, strong, athletic, and energetic. Even before they are born, boys are bigger and more energetic than girls."
Boys and men prefer the company of strong companions:
"Boys and young men are attracted most to boys who exhibit just the skills that would be invaluable in a fighter. Little boys, older boys in middle childhood, and adolescent boys prefer to be friends with the physically strongest, tallest, and most athletic boys around. This preference continues throughout life and across the world. As anyone who has attended Western elementary, junior high, and senior high schools knows, the tallest, strongest, most athletic boys are respected not only by the girls but also by the other boys. Tall, strong men are admired most by other men even in the simplest of hunter-gatherer societies. In the most modern societies, men are more likely to employ physically taller and more energetic male peers over shorter and less energetic ones. As education increases and the need for physical skills decreases, the value of physical strength diminishes, but even then it doesn’t disappear."
Why, then, are boys and men so drawn to strong peers?
"What makes boys’ and men’s preference for physically strong male peers so fascinating is that these are just the peers who provide the most competition. Why should boys and men be so attracted to peers who might be superior to them? Don’t boys and men want to dominate everyone else? The only answer that makes sense to me is that boys and men desire to form the physically strongest group possible. That way, they can have the best chances of defeating another group. One physically strong and nimble group member can determine the outcome for the whole group."
This preference contrasts with female peer preferences:
"This desire to associate with the physically toughest males makes human males unique compared with males of other species, and compared with human females. Few girls or women care how physically strong their female friend is. Yet, a boy or man, given the chance, will stick closely to the strongest and most athletically talented male around."
Emotional Toughness
"What other traits might aid in the war effort? Emotions have been studied around the world. And, around the world, men express emotions less often and with less intensity than women do. This is especially true for fear and sadness. The only exception is anger, which is typically associated with aggression. However, there is no evidence that boys or men actually feel angrier than girls or women.
Why should men be so emotionally cool? Emotions communicate feelings to others. They also affect our own behavior. If you’re fighting an enemy, communicating evaluations about progress to oneself or others are both potential weaknesses when things are not going well. Fearing death or mourning a lost comrade during an attack can be lethal emotions to transmit, or even to feel. A person who loses control of his emotions cannot think clearly about what is happening around him. Revealing to the enemy that one feels scared or sad would be even worse. A man cannot change the course of war through his emotions, only through his motivation to win and his behavior. While anger likely helps provide a shot of adrenaline, emotional cool is critical to fighting well."
Low fear responsiveness is advantageous in fighting contexts:
Low fear responsiveness is advantageous in fighting contexts:
"Fear is the worst emotion to feel when fighting. Fear makes people shy away from dangerous situations, such as war. Unsurprisingly, around the world men experience less fear than women. Who is more likely to pick up a poisonous snake and get bitten? Who is more likely to be strangled by their pet python? Who enjoys riding motorcycles most? Who is more likely to fall off the edge of a cliff? Who is more likely to hit a tree during a skiing accident? Whose bungee cord is more likely to break? Who is more likely to shoot themselves with a handgun they found in a secret hiding place? Who is more likely to be swept away during a hurricane that was predicted by the weather service? The statistics are clear. At every age, males take many more risks than females do. And they are much more likely than girls or women to die from risky behaviors. Insurance companies know this and charge men higher premiums. Males take greater risks than females because they are less afraid."
This emphasis on fearlessness leads to the importance of emotional coolness, exemplified by figures such as James Bond:
"Authors know the importance of being cool when battling the enemy. James Bond embodies the British battle against the enemy. Of all his positive qualities, his cool stands out. From my many observations, even the youngest male toddlers do not like their male peers to become too upset. Emotional “cool” is a big draw even before a boy can explain what type of peer he most respects."
Boys prefer emotionally cool peers:
"Boys and men greatly prefer other boys and men who don’t let their emotions show. They don’t expect the same of girls and women, from whom uncool displays of emotion are tolerated. But boys naturally show less emotion than girls. Ross Buck showed this in an ingenious way. He asked 4- to 6-year-old children to view slides showing pleasant and unpleasant pictures. Observers who were in another room and who could not see the slides tried to guess just from the children’s facial expressions which kind of slide a child was watching. This was relatively easy with the girls. But the observers found it very hard to read the boys’ facial expressions. The older boys showed even less emotion than the younger ones. When the study was replicated with adults, the sex difference was even stronger. Men’s expressions were much more difficult to read than women’s. Men actually moved their facial muscles less than women did."
This emphasis on fearlessness leads to the importance of emotional coolness, exemplified by figures such as James Bond:
"Authors know the importance of being cool when battling the enemy. James Bond embodies the British battle against the enemy. Of all his positive qualities, his cool stands out. From my many observations, even the youngest male toddlers do not like their male peers to become too upset. Emotional “cool” is a big draw even before a boy can explain what type of peer he most respects."
Boys prefer emotionally cool peers:
"Boys and men greatly prefer other boys and men who don’t let their emotions show. They don’t expect the same of girls and women, from whom uncool displays of emotion are tolerated. But boys naturally show less emotion than girls. Ross Buck showed this in an ingenious way. He asked 4- to 6-year-old children to view slides showing pleasant and unpleasant pictures. Observers who were in another room and who could not see the slides tried to guess just from the children’s facial expressions which kind of slide a child was watching. This was relatively easy with the girls. But the observers found it very hard to read the boys’ facial expressions. The older boys showed even less emotion than the younger ones. When the study was replicated with adults, the sex difference was even stronger. Men’s expressions were much more difficult to read than women’s. Men actually moved their facial muscles less than women did."
Coolness is highly regarded, while emotional “uncoolness” is derogated:
"Boys expect each other to be emotionally muted. By age 6, they value other boys who are emotionally cool. Even in early childhood, boys who cannot control strong emotions are often insulted by being called girls or gay—two inferior types in boys’ minds. Being cool is an important part of boys’ intuitive measuring stick for manliness. I suggest that “manliness” means the type of individual one would want next to you when the enemy attacks."
Unconstrained emotional expression is often problematic for boys and men:
"Certainly, emotional cool is highly valued by boys living in difficult environments . But this intuition is so strong that it is even shared by advantaged boys who live far from the possibility of war. This was brought home clearly by a recent study that looked at adolescent boys in a private school in the liberal, generally antiwar northeastern United States who were interviewed about how they dealt with personal difficulties. They all agreed that openly expressing their feelings was just not a useful way of coping with problems. Expressing emotions decreased their status with the other boys. Their preferred response was being stoic, not showing emotion, even when dealing with something as painful as the death of another person. If a boy did show his emotions, his male friends would react by making fun of him, telling jokes, or ignoring or distracting him. The victim of these attacks appreciated this: Being made fun of helped him to calm down. According to these boys, this type of reaction showed that their friends cared about them. Many boys taunt one another not to bully each other but to help each other out, to teach each other how to deal with the world most beneficially. The only exception these boys made was when a relative died. Only then was some expression of pain permissible."
Additionally, emotional coolness is essential in military contexts:
"too much anger is detrimental. An enraged man, wildly gesticulating and shouting at his target, might prove effective in the civilian world. In the military however, real anger can produce bad decisions in the heat of the moment that could endanger the whole unit. An angry man is erratic and undependable."
Self-confidence
"I am always impressed by the style of boys or men when they are speaking to an audience. They make confident, clear, and indisputable declarations. They present themselves in the most positive manner possible, speaking loudly with a stern intonation accompanied by forceful gestures. Their self-assured posture is guaranteed to persuade listeners of the brilliance of the speaker’s accomplishments and the truth of his message. Male presentation styles surely inspire more confidence than the way many women communicate. A woman’s talk often comes peppered with self-deprecatory descriptions and gestures. She often begins her talk apologizing for some failing. Her posture indicates uncertainty and subordination. She speaks with wavering, halting rhythms, and with so many qualifications that the listener questions not only the woman’s message but her whole character, even when her talk is brilliant."
Communicating self-confidence is essential in competitive and combative contexts:
"The advantages of communicating self-confidence to oneself, one’s group, and the enemy cannot be overestimated. Fighting is not just physical force. A critical part of being an effective fighter is feeling and projecting confidence. This works in two ways. People who feel confident are in fact more effective. Projecting confidence to the enemy signals that maybe you are stronger than he thought. In contrast, any hint of insecurity or vulnerability could be fatal. Supreme self-confidence can take individuals in any endeavor much further than they would have gone otherwise. The very definition of masculinity in fact rests heavily on projected self-assurance. According to the most well-established assessment of gender identity, men who exhibit signs of self-doubt, lack of certainty, low self-esteem, or indecisiveness are not fully masculine. Self-confidence is critical to winning any contest, and winning competitions is critical to being a man. I suggest that being a man means knowing deep down that you will be able to defeat the enemy. No doubt is allowed."
According to Benenson, men appear to possess higher self-confidence from early childhood:
"Men appear to be born believing that they are of high ability, whereas women do not easily assimilate the idea that they are as good as others. Hundreds of studies show this effect and suggest that men just feel better about themselves than women do. Men feel particularly good about themselves in domains such as athletic ability, appraisal of their personality, and overall satisfaction or happiness with themselves. Women in contrast rate their behavioral and moral conduct as more socially acceptable to their societies than men do. In other words, men just feel good about who they are, whereas women feel good about being moral. This starts very early in life. Even 7-year-old boys have more self-confidence than 7-year-old girls."
Boys enjoy the company of peers with high self-esteem:
"Boys and men value self-confidence in their friends. They are attracted to other boys who perform well. Girls actually prefer other girls who share their own problems and don’t have high levels of self-esteem. ... In fact, many females even described being afraid that if they were too successful, their friends would abandon them."
Why do men prefer high self-esteem in their peers?
"I believe that males value high self-esteem in themselves and their male peers because it increases the probability of beating the enemy. High self-esteem can make someone with poor abilities do well; low self-esteem can make someone with excellent abilities do poorly. In warfare, where getting the best out of everyone is critical, having allies with high self-esteem is invaluable. The more one’s allies have high self-confidence, the more intimidating they are; the greater the likelihood the enemy will retreat. This seems to be an excellent strategy for winning. Of course, this may occasionally incite wars based on overconfidence. Better to be overconfident than underconfident and surrender before you even begin."
Additionally, emotional coolness is essential in military contexts:
"too much anger is detrimental. An enraged man, wildly gesticulating and shouting at his target, might prove effective in the civilian world. In the military however, real anger can produce bad decisions in the heat of the moment that could endanger the whole unit. An angry man is erratic and undependable."
Self-confidence
"I am always impressed by the style of boys or men when they are speaking to an audience. They make confident, clear, and indisputable declarations. They present themselves in the most positive manner possible, speaking loudly with a stern intonation accompanied by forceful gestures. Their self-assured posture is guaranteed to persuade listeners of the brilliance of the speaker’s accomplishments and the truth of his message. Male presentation styles surely inspire more confidence than the way many women communicate. A woman’s talk often comes peppered with self-deprecatory descriptions and gestures. She often begins her talk apologizing for some failing. Her posture indicates uncertainty and subordination. She speaks with wavering, halting rhythms, and with so many qualifications that the listener questions not only the woman’s message but her whole character, even when her talk is brilliant."
Communicating self-confidence is essential in competitive and combative contexts:
"The advantages of communicating self-confidence to oneself, one’s group, and the enemy cannot be overestimated. Fighting is not just physical force. A critical part of being an effective fighter is feeling and projecting confidence. This works in two ways. People who feel confident are in fact more effective. Projecting confidence to the enemy signals that maybe you are stronger than he thought. In contrast, any hint of insecurity or vulnerability could be fatal. Supreme self-confidence can take individuals in any endeavor much further than they would have gone otherwise. The very definition of masculinity in fact rests heavily on projected self-assurance. According to the most well-established assessment of gender identity, men who exhibit signs of self-doubt, lack of certainty, low self-esteem, or indecisiveness are not fully masculine. Self-confidence is critical to winning any contest, and winning competitions is critical to being a man. I suggest that being a man means knowing deep down that you will be able to defeat the enemy. No doubt is allowed."
According to Benenson, men appear to possess higher self-confidence from early childhood:
"Men appear to be born believing that they are of high ability, whereas women do not easily assimilate the idea that they are as good as others. Hundreds of studies show this effect and suggest that men just feel better about themselves than women do. Men feel particularly good about themselves in domains such as athletic ability, appraisal of their personality, and overall satisfaction or happiness with themselves. Women in contrast rate their behavioral and moral conduct as more socially acceptable to their societies than men do. In other words, men just feel good about who they are, whereas women feel good about being moral. This starts very early in life. Even 7-year-old boys have more self-confidence than 7-year-old girls."
Boys enjoy the company of peers with high self-esteem:
"Boys and men value self-confidence in their friends. They are attracted to other boys who perform well. Girls actually prefer other girls who share their own problems and don’t have high levels of self-esteem. ... In fact, many females even described being afraid that if they were too successful, their friends would abandon them."
Why do men prefer high self-esteem in their peers?
"I believe that males value high self-esteem in themselves and their male peers because it increases the probability of beating the enemy. High self-esteem can make someone with poor abilities do well; low self-esteem can make someone with excellent abilities do poorly. In warfare, where getting the best out of everyone is critical, having allies with high self-esteem is invaluable. The more one’s allies have high self-confidence, the more intimidating they are; the greater the likelihood the enemy will retreat. This seems to be an excellent strategy for winning. Of course, this may occasionally incite wars based on overconfidence. Better to be overconfident than underconfident and surrender before you even begin."
Obedience to Rules
"From early in life, boys drive teachers crazy. Many cannot sit still; they talk out of turn; they run around the school building; they shout and curse and laugh and shriek incessantly; they injure themselves frequently; they fight openly; they spend as much time away from adults as possible; they perpetually require excitement and movement to stave off boredom. In traditional societies without formal schools, mothers attempt to force their sons to help with household chores but eventually end up letting them roam as far from home as they will go. Boys so easily forget or overtly disobey their mothers’ directives that their mothers turn instead to their more reliable daughters for assistance."
Nevertheless, boys can be highly adept at following rules:
"Amazingly, these same boys show an incredible reverence for rules: not rules created by women or other authorities but rules created by the boys themselves. From early childhood, boys begin to generate rules, to negotiate changes in rules, to argue over broken rules and appropriate penalties. They ignore the rules of women and girls but follow their own rules to the letter. Men playing informal sports spend money to hire a male referee, just to ensure that the rules are followed. Some female teams in modern societies also hire referees—but these are mostly male. As one frustrated coach of a female sports team patiently explained to me, female referees sometimes feel so sorry for a player, they don’t apply the rules fairly."
Nevertheless, boys can be highly adept at following rules:
"Amazingly, these same boys show an incredible reverence for rules: not rules created by women or other authorities but rules created by the boys themselves. From early childhood, boys begin to generate rules, to negotiate changes in rules, to argue over broken rules and appropriate penalties. They ignore the rules of women and girls but follow their own rules to the letter. Men playing informal sports spend money to hire a male referee, just to ensure that the rules are followed. Some female teams in modern societies also hire referees—but these are mostly male. As one frustrated coach of a female sports team patiently explained to me, female referees sometimes feel so sorry for a player, they don’t apply the rules fairly."
Rules are essential for group functioning:
"Rules are critically important to humans. No group can exist without them. Rules create a social system. They generate scripts that permit a disparate group of individuals to function as a whole. They allow people who are physically distant to coordinate their activities. They ensure that the same standards are applied to everyone, so that fairness reigns and individuals choose to remain rather than jump ship. To some, rules form the essence of morality. Jean Piaget, one of the founders of developmental psychology, declared, “All morality consists in a system of rules, and the essence of all morality is to be sought for in the respect which the individual acquires for these rules” (Piaget, 1932)."
Although primate rules are relatively static and non-negotiable, they are pervasive in primate social life:
"Most social primate species instinctively follow many rules. These regulate vital aspects of life, including who ranks highest, holds territory, mates with whom, forms an alliance, begins and ends conflicts, or can join the community and must leave, to name just a few. These rules are not written down but are followed because primates’ genes have created biological instincts that lead them to behave in certain ways. Primate rules remain fairly static and nonnegotiable throughout animals’ lives. Although individuals’ roles may change from infancy through old age, the basic rules of life don’t change."
This contrasts with human rule-generating behavior:
Although primate rules are relatively static and non-negotiable, they are pervasive in primate social life:
"Most social primate species instinctively follow many rules. These regulate vital aspects of life, including who ranks highest, holds territory, mates with whom, forms an alliance, begins and ends conflicts, or can join the community and must leave, to name just a few. These rules are not written down but are followed because primates’ genes have created biological instincts that lead them to behave in certain ways. Primate rules remain fairly static and nonnegotiable throughout animals’ lives. Although individuals’ roles may change from infancy through old age, the basic rules of life don’t change."
This contrasts with human rule-generating behavior:
"Humans, on the other hand, continually generate new rules, revise old ones, and attempt to circumvent those they deem unfair. They rebel against rules they dislike and sacrifice their lives to uphold rules they consider superior. This may be one of the most distinctive aspects of being human. Rules, however, have been a primarily male occupation. For thousands of years, males have constructed the rules that underlie religions, governments, economic systems, businesses, educational structures, and of course judicial courts and the military. Since ancient times, games with rules created by boys and men have predominated all over the world. Even men who break established rules often end up adhering to an alternate set of rules such as those found in criminal gangs or militias. Men and boys who join rule-bound systems prosper when they follow the rules of other boys and men."
Rule modification is a skill in its own right:
In essence:
Rule modification is a skill in its own right:
"Typically, young boys learn the rules of a game from older boys. They then negotiate local revisions and demand respect for their version of the “sacred” laws. Marble games contain infinite variants, local customs, and generational changes. These function in the same way as the rules for today’s more popular Yu-Gi-Oh! and Pokemon card games, or any board game or physical sport. Individual marbles or cards differ in their roles and power. Adherence to these rules allows fair competition. Breaking the rules invites social ostracism and expulsion from the game. Obedience to the rules elicits honor and respect. Gallantry is much admired as victors offer to play again to provide losers a chance to redeem themselves. Players can modify rules at any moment, if they can get the others to agree. An individual player must always be ready to contribute to rule making, or the other players will leave him out in the cold."
Rules are essential for sustaining long-lasting games:
"You might think that paying attention to other players’ feelings would make it easier to play together than sticking to a set of fairly rigid rules. But you would be wrong. One of the more interesting things noted by Lever was that boys’ games lasted much longer than girls’ games. Lever reported, “Boys’ games lasting the entire period of 25 minutes were common, but in a whole year in the field, I did not observe a single girls’ activity that lasted longer than 15 minutes” (Lever, 1976, p. 482). Although boys quarreled more frequently than girls, the boys enjoyed the conflict, especially those over the rules. According to the physical education teacher at Lever’s school, “His boys seemed to enjoy the legal debates every bit as much as the game itself. Even players who were marginal because of lesser skills or size took equal part in these recurring squabbles” (Lever, 1976, p. 482). In fact, much of modern Western education until recently was based on the idea that physical sports with rules prepared boys to fight wars as men. In contrast, girls often prefer practicing gymnastics and dance, which contain few rules and often require little cooperation with others."
Rules are essential for sustaining long-lasting games:
"You might think that paying attention to other players’ feelings would make it easier to play together than sticking to a set of fairly rigid rules. But you would be wrong. One of the more interesting things noted by Lever was that boys’ games lasted much longer than girls’ games. Lever reported, “Boys’ games lasting the entire period of 25 minutes were common, but in a whole year in the field, I did not observe a single girls’ activity that lasted longer than 15 minutes” (Lever, 1976, p. 482). Although boys quarreled more frequently than girls, the boys enjoyed the conflict, especially those over the rules. According to the physical education teacher at Lever’s school, “His boys seemed to enjoy the legal debates every bit as much as the game itself. Even players who were marginal because of lesser skills or size took equal part in these recurring squabbles” (Lever, 1976, p. 482). In fact, much of modern Western education until recently was based on the idea that physical sports with rules prepared boys to fight wars as men. In contrast, girls often prefer practicing gymnastics and dance, which contain few rules and often require little cooperation with others."
In essence:
"Adherence to fixed rules, revision of outdated ones, and adoption of new ones are necessary. Learning tonegotiate rules is invaluable for running a group. ... Athletic ability, emotional cool, and self-confidence in a fellow fighter provide an individual advantage to that person and his group. Rules serve the group’s interest. Rules permit allies to coordinate their efforts. Rules permit distinguishing friends from the enemy. Rules increase the impact of learning. Rules permit synchronization of attacks from distant posts. Rules are essential to group fighting. Males’ love of rules suggests that boys and men are not simply interested in beating their individual competitors, as in most other primate species. They want to beat them according to the rules. They want to cooperate too.
This love of rules is so strong that rules are applied even in one-on-one competition. The strange notion of fighting fair requires following rules. Otherwise, a man loses the respect of other men. Duels fought by gladiators and bullfighters, wrestlers, and boxers occur according to specified man-made rules. On the surface this seems bizarre. Why should two men fighting to the death follow any rules at all? Yet, throughout history men have generated rules for the most brutal of conflicts. Girls and women don’t follow any rules in their fights, and this often makes female fights all the more interesting because the drama is so much less predictable."
Expertise
Expertise
"There is one more trait that boys and men especially value in their peers: expertise. Human males specialize. They recognize and respect individual expertise, and they organize their groups in order to capitalize on the abilities of each of their allies. Expertise comes in many forms: physical prowess, emotional cool, self-confidence, leadership skills, social savvy, as well as a host of physical, engineering and other skills that might benefit the group. In fact, men value proficiency in just about any activity that could potentially contribute to a war effort. It is worth remarking again just how extraordinary this is. Organizing groups in this way involves getting highly competitive individuals to acknowledge that other individuals have more skills in some specific areas than they do. Not only that, but the same competitive individuals will defer to the opinion of the more skilled one.
I suggest that valuing another’s superior expertise so highly occurs because the inferior individual feels that he too will benefit from his ally’s skill. In war, the most effective fighting force should maximize each member’s potential. But it is a two-way street. A male who is inferior in one way has to be good in another way. Otherwise, the group won’t value him. That means that whether he is skilled at throwing a ball, leading a company, or making his peers laugh, his peers respect him. Males will suffer great hardship, sometimes in the form of extreme hazing in their groups, to prove that they are worthy of a group’s respect. Obtaining the respect of the group is a great feeling. The result is that males defer to those who are more skilled and expect others to respect their own area of expertise. The whole group benefits."
Boys’ respect for their peers’ skills differs from that of girls:
"Boys respect their peers’ expertise in a way that girls don’t. This became clear to me after individually interviewing 9- to 11-year-old working-class children from the Boston area. I brought each child one at a time to a quiet room and asked them to describe every one of his or her same-sex classmates. Boys made more refined judgments than girls did. Many of these boys’ judgments reflected candid appraisals of other boys’ expertise and willingness to work hard. Boys described the other boys in their class in terms of their academic ability, their athletic ability, and their specific interests and hobbies. They mentioned how hard the other boys worked, how willing they were to abide by or break rules of authority figures, how much they made fun of others, how goofy they were, as well as how strange and good or bad they were. Girls rarely did so. The only two characteristics used more often by girls than boys were whether the classmate was nice and whether she reciprocated nice actions."
Male and female friendships differ in their primary mode of interaction:
"According to Swain, 75% of men report common activities as the most important part of their relationship with same-sex friends and that men’s friendships mostly consist in providing assistance to one another during an activity. In contrast, women spent their time talking with friends about relationships they have (or had) with third parties."
Benenson offers an evolutionary explanation for boys’ aversion to feminine male peers:
"The desire to have peers who are potential allies in a group targeting the enemy may increase understanding of one of the more difficult parts of males’ social behavior—their instinctive aversion to feminine boys, and by extension to homosexuality. Many nonhuman male primates will scapegoat or displace their aggression onto the weakest males, but there is no evidence that weak males are excluded as long as they defer to stronger ones. But boys taunt and even bully their less masculine peers. Even in the most politically correct environments, boys will often insult or attack boys who behave like girls. What is it about a boy who behaves like a girl that males don’t like? A boy who behaves like a girl does not like play fighting, targeting enemies, or one-on-one competition. He might even enjoy domestic activities."
What does it mean to be a boy?
"Most boys do not like feminine boys and tease them or try hard to change them into “real” boys. Around the world, boys expend much more effort and time than girls in assessing the extent to which a boy is a “real boy”. Just like being manly seems to mean being ready to join a fighting force, being a real boy does too. Early in life, long before boys understand what homosexuality or transgender categories are, boys seem to share a picture of what it takes to be a boy. No such thing as a “tomgirl” exists; feminine boys are sissies or fake boys. What makes this so striking is the contrast with girls, who do not have a “real girl” or a womanly scale. Girls are much more tolerant in their definition of a girl or woman. For the most part, girls exhibit little interest in the degree to which a girl believes she is a girl, in whether a girl plays exclusively with girls, or in the activities a girl prefers. The only attribute by which a girl measures another girl is in terms of her attractiveness to boys, and this concern does not emerge strongly until adolescence. Boys and men seem to come equipped with a universal boy-measuring stick that they use to measure degree of boyishness and manliness, whereas girls don’t have a female equivalent."
Nevertheless, homosexuality and femininity are not equivalent:
"Only some homosexual men dislike warfare and instead like activities that are more typically associated with women. It probably is not really homosexuality, therefore, that young boys fear but femininity or “girlieness.” Specifically, feminine boys’ unwillingness to share most boys’ favorite activities and to cooperate with them likely constitutes the basic problem."
In short, these considerations lead to the conclusion that:
"young boys follow the principles of distancing themselves from caregivers, from girls, and from boys who would not be good allies in a war instinctively. They do it because there is a partial genetic basis for their likes and dislikes. That their social preferences appear so early in life, and across so many diverse cultures, strongly suggests that genes may be guiding these preferences. Certainly, such preferences would combine in young adulthood to maximize the chances the young men could form an effective fighting force . Critically, when no enemy looms, these same social preferences would facilitate success in many other pursuits. What boys may be programmed to learn easily does not have to be used to fight the enemy. Successful cooperation in any activity would result. The key is that young boys prepare early to function as part of a group of allies."
I enjoyed reading this chapter very much, particularly the discussion of the traits that make a man a good ally or an effective warrior, and the argument that men actively select allies according to these criteria. I found this chapter even more engaging than the first chapter of this part of the book. The next review will address the third and final chapter of this section: Chapter 4 – Organizing the Military: Groups of Egalitarian Men.
Boys’ respect for their peers’ skills differs from that of girls:
"Boys respect their peers’ expertise in a way that girls don’t. This became clear to me after individually interviewing 9- to 11-year-old working-class children from the Boston area. I brought each child one at a time to a quiet room and asked them to describe every one of his or her same-sex classmates. Boys made more refined judgments than girls did. Many of these boys’ judgments reflected candid appraisals of other boys’ expertise and willingness to work hard. Boys described the other boys in their class in terms of their academic ability, their athletic ability, and their specific interests and hobbies. They mentioned how hard the other boys worked, how willing they were to abide by or break rules of authority figures, how much they made fun of others, how goofy they were, as well as how strange and good or bad they were. Girls rarely did so. The only two characteristics used more often by girls than boys were whether the classmate was nice and whether she reciprocated nice actions."
Male and female friendships differ in their primary mode of interaction:
"According to Swain, 75% of men report common activities as the most important part of their relationship with same-sex friends and that men’s friendships mostly consist in providing assistance to one another during an activity. In contrast, women spent their time talking with friends about relationships they have (or had) with third parties."
Benenson offers an evolutionary explanation for boys’ aversion to feminine male peers:
"The desire to have peers who are potential allies in a group targeting the enemy may increase understanding of one of the more difficult parts of males’ social behavior—their instinctive aversion to feminine boys, and by extension to homosexuality. Many nonhuman male primates will scapegoat or displace their aggression onto the weakest males, but there is no evidence that weak males are excluded as long as they defer to stronger ones. But boys taunt and even bully their less masculine peers. Even in the most politically correct environments, boys will often insult or attack boys who behave like girls. What is it about a boy who behaves like a girl that males don’t like? A boy who behaves like a girl does not like play fighting, targeting enemies, or one-on-one competition. He might even enjoy domestic activities."
What does it mean to be a boy?
"Most boys do not like feminine boys and tease them or try hard to change them into “real” boys. Around the world, boys expend much more effort and time than girls in assessing the extent to which a boy is a “real boy”. Just like being manly seems to mean being ready to join a fighting force, being a real boy does too. Early in life, long before boys understand what homosexuality or transgender categories are, boys seem to share a picture of what it takes to be a boy. No such thing as a “tomgirl” exists; feminine boys are sissies or fake boys. What makes this so striking is the contrast with girls, who do not have a “real girl” or a womanly scale. Girls are much more tolerant in their definition of a girl or woman. For the most part, girls exhibit little interest in the degree to which a girl believes she is a girl, in whether a girl plays exclusively with girls, or in the activities a girl prefers. The only attribute by which a girl measures another girl is in terms of her attractiveness to boys, and this concern does not emerge strongly until adolescence. Boys and men seem to come equipped with a universal boy-measuring stick that they use to measure degree of boyishness and manliness, whereas girls don’t have a female equivalent."
Nevertheless, homosexuality and femininity are not equivalent:
"Only some homosexual men dislike warfare and instead like activities that are more typically associated with women. It probably is not really homosexuality, therefore, that young boys fear but femininity or “girlieness.” Specifically, feminine boys’ unwillingness to share most boys’ favorite activities and to cooperate with them likely constitutes the basic problem."
In short, these considerations lead to the conclusion that:
"young boys follow the principles of distancing themselves from caregivers, from girls, and from boys who would not be good allies in a war instinctively. They do it because there is a partial genetic basis for their likes and dislikes. That their social preferences appear so early in life, and across so many diverse cultures, strongly suggests that genes may be guiding these preferences. Certainly, such preferences would combine in young adulthood to maximize the chances the young men could form an effective fighting force . Critically, when no enemy looms, these same social preferences would facilitate success in many other pursuits. What boys may be programmed to learn easily does not have to be used to fight the enemy. Successful cooperation in any activity would result. The key is that young boys prepare early to function as part of a group of allies."
I enjoyed reading this chapter very much, particularly the discussion of the traits that make a man a good ally or an effective warrior, and the argument that men actively select allies according to these criteria. I found this chapter even more engaging than the first chapter of this part of the book. The next review will address the third and final chapter of this section: Chapter 4 – Organizing the Military: Groups of Egalitarian Men.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen