T Nation

How Men and Women Socialize Differently

Good Listen.

Arnold Kling’s blogpost : Academic corruption 2: Emasculated culture

Saturday summers, when I was a kid
We’d run to the schoolyard, here’s what we did
Pick out the captains, choose up the teams
It was always a measure of my self-esteem
Cause the fastest, the strongest, played shortstop and first. . .

“Right Field,” Willy Welch (popularized by Peter, Paul and Mary)

I enjoyed this podcast with Joyce Benenson, about her book, Warriers and Worriers. She and Roy Baumeister are the rare social scientists who see that (a) men and women differ on average in their behavioral tendencies and (b) male tendencies are not all bad.

Her book is grounded in observations of young boys and girls. My memories of my boyhood align perfectly with her picture of boys, and with the song lyrics above. We played team sports without supervision, put a lot of effort into setting rules, and competed to demonstrate skill. When we weren’t playing sports, we imagined ourselves fighting the “bad guys,” either in the Old West or in World War II.

One of her ideas is that men have a social strategy that works well in war: organize unrelated males, fight other groups overtly according to rules, then reconcile after battle. Women have a social strategy that works well for protecting their individual health and the health of their children: emphasize safety, covertly undermine the status of unrelated females, and exclude rivals rather than reconcile with them.

This leads me to speculate on the consequences of adding a lot of women to formerly male domains. Over the past several decades, a number of important institutions that were formerly almost exclusively male now include many women: academia, journalism, politics, and management positions in organizations. These institutions increasingly are discarding the values that sustained them when the female presence was less.

  1. The older culture saw differential rewards as just when based on performance. The newer culture sees differential rewards as unjust.

  2. The older culture sought people who demonstrate the most competence. The newer culture seeks to nurture those who are at a disadvantage.

  3. The older culture admires those who seek to stand out. The newer culture disdains such people.

  4. The older culture uses proportional punishment that is predictable based on known rules. The newer culture suddenly turns against a target and permanently banishes the alleged violator, based on the latest moral fashions.

  5. The older culture valued open debate. The newer culture seeks to curtail speech it regards as dangerous.

  6. The older culture saw liberty as essential to a good society. The newer culture sees conformity as essential to a good society.

  7. The older culture was oriented toward achievement. The newer culture is oriented toward safety. Hence, we cannot complete major construction projects, like bridges, as efficiently as we used to.

I think that in each case, the older culture was consistent with male tendencies (what Benenson calls “warriors”); the newer culture is consistent with female tendencies (what she calls “worriers”). Keep in mind that men can have worrier personalities and women can have warrior personalities, but those are not the norm.

Overall, we have made institutions harder for warriors to navigate. College no longer helps men to make the transition to adulthood. It keeps them sheltered and controlled, and after graduation they end up living with their parents.

Why did opening up opportunities for women lead to this outcome? One can imagine other outcomes. Perhaps women would have assimilated into the male culture, adopting some male tendencies in the process. Perhaps women and men would have retained their different behavioral tendencies but agreed to accommodate one another.

Instead, both men and women seem to have agreed that a purge of male tendencies is in order. Some women scorn male values as tools of oppression, and most men would rather accommodate this view than voice disagreement.

I note that the readership of this blog appears to be overwhelmingly to be male, at least based on those who leave comments. Note also that this is the long-postponed “cancel-bait” post.


This is only relevant if you play in that culture game IMO, which btw is a losing one. Focus on gaining in demand skills, know how to influence and persuade, be principled and honorable, get shit done, minimise the shit you cause, keep in shape, share you knowledge, be polite and make others better. If you continue to do this and continue to improve, focus on family and the community you can directly influence and not what is happening across hundreds of millions of people - it doesn’t matter who the fucks around you decide to favour this month.


American society has turned virtually feminine and will cease to exist in another generation or two.


We need a bunch of tough, hard working, un-coddled immigrants to come here and restore our manliness.


In my and your day, l would not know nor care whether you were joking with your comment. I would grab you and you me, in an impromptu rasslin match, knocking over chairs and desks. Be sent to get a couple of licks in the principal’s office. Then probably eat lunch at the same table and talk about baseball practice or going hunting.

Today our parents would be informed that if the 3 day suspension doesn’t take hold, we will be candidates for some separated detention class for the semester. Maybe the police will be called to keep an eye on these two 5th grade hooligans.

Not glamorizing uncouth behavior, but Equality Act makes sense to more than 5% of anyone over 40?

1 Like

I’m subscribed to the AOM podcast and think it’s great. I listened to an episode just yesterday.

And thereby have the current male population go extinct? Or do you mean teach us to be manly?

Some on T-mag through the years have actually suggested matriarchal governance.

It’s actually up to fathers to do this but many fathers are fine with our current matriarchy or gynecocracy or are physically or emotionally absent. Hence what I refer to as the surrogate-daddy industry, comprised of mouth breathers and pseudo sages such as Joe Rogan, David Goggins, Jocko Willink, Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Elliott Hulse, Aaron McClarey, and so on. Granted some of these men provide some decent advice and some have some redeeming qualities. And there’s nothing wrong with seeking out the wisdom of men outside of one’s family. However if your daddy isn’t around and/or cannot point you in the right direction, recognize your talents, imbue values and ethics, educate you on the opposite gender’s nature, and tell you how this world actually works, then there’s a big problem!


I agree that a little good natured rough-housing shouldn’t be a big deal. But I don’t want to see little, unpopular kids shoved around either. I don’t know, I can see how it might be hard to operate in the middle ground.

I haven’t been near a school in like 20+ years, but things do look a little messed up from an outside, uninformed perspective. Like are all these rules and zero tolerance policies making schools safer and less traumatic?

Also, what’s up with parents lining up hours early to pick up kids at school? Like backed out into the street, totally blocking roads?

Gynocracy! What a fun new term!

Why the Steve Goggins hate? How does the first powerlifter to squat 1100 get lumped in with the other guys you mentioned?

1 Like

Sorry, I meant David Goggins.

1 Like

Before anybody gets their undergarments all jambed up in their pronoun crevice, the responses are just satyrical. Maybe also accurate. But if you need a disclaimer any attempt at funny is gonna be dead on arrival anyways.

That’s because men are better at everything.

See response to statement one.

… He said on social media… :joy:

Yep. Very predictable. Money=freedom. If you don’t know that before you get in adult trouble, you surely will after. :joy:


That’s exactly what someone who wants to impose their own form of liberty upon everybody else would say. :grin:

Yeah, if you were of the class that was allowed to read, and gender that was allowed to attend school past elementary education.

During the civil war there was at least one instance of brandishing pistols in the US house of representatives. Politics has pretty much always been nasty. I suspect the general populace also was divided.

1 Like

I’m baffled at how David Goggins and Jocko Willink are being lumped in with Ben Shapiro here.

Disclaimer: I’m not really a huge fan of either of them, but former SEALs and Ben Shapiro just don’t mesh.


Well sure. That, and it was happening during The Civil War! :joy:

:+1: You gotta love when somebody smokes up a big ole rock of that old timey bullshit crack then busts out an incell manifesto.


Got a genuine LOL out of this statement.


I honestly don’t even know how to reply to this, haha. Building regulations are SUPER important, and we’re as efficient as ever at building.

What years are we talking about with this statement?

You think we could realistically build the Hoover dam in 5 years or the Panama Canal in 10 today?

1 Like

Pretty much impossible to speculate on, but the speed at which a lot of things are built is determined by their necessity. Plus, there’s the question of, is something just being built fast efficient, or is it just as efficient to build something not as quickly, but adhering to regulations that ensure safety? My issue is that being concentrated on safety in construction is not a bad thing at all. You don’t have to go very far outside of America to see what a lack of regulation in construction can do.

The US is painfully slow on infrastructure projects. It took less time to build the The Shanghai tower than it did to widen a 300m stretch of the highway near where I’m living now In Florida

At least it’s faster than projects in Taiwan. They’re still working on a road Chiang Kai Shek started :joy:

Was the Panama Canal actually built in 10 years?

How about repairs and expansions? Do those count?

Construction, from design to fabrication and erection is quantum leaps ahead in safety and efficiency of where it was in the late 1800’s. That this could even be debated in a world of cad software, lazer measuring, modern superlifters and other technologies is absolutely baffling to me.

Just from the wiki, first attempt. Feel free to provide your own sources.