Why is it that men are in charge of the majority of businesses and countries?


What is it biologically or psychologically about human males that resulted in most cultures across the world being male dominated?

In: Biology

I think it all comes down to children. Birth control obviously didn’t exist for the vast majority of human history, so women were kind of *forced* to have kids.

I don’t know either, but now that you mention it, wonder if that is related to recent women’s sports as well:

“Trans Athletes Are Posting Victories and Shaking Up Sports | WIRED” https://www.wired.com/story/the-glorious-victories-of-trans-athletes-are-shaking-up-sports

Humans are tribalistic. Tens of thousands of years of evolution have preconditioned us to view men as a source of strength that can protect us from harm. Those instincts aren’t so easily erased, but women are just as capable to lead in modern society and over time we’re seeing more and more women rise to positions of power.

Shout out to Kamala Harris.

Because men by genetics are more prone to follow logic allowing them to invent and build things. Not a chauvinistic point of view. Just reality. Also men are generally more competitive and aggressive which leads to being a more dominant personality I think. Women can’t do “anything” just like men can’t do “anything”. We were designed differently specifically to make our species successful. If you fight nature it will eventually fight back and win. .

First you need to find the traits of business owners and politicians, then dive into how those traits are distributed into the population, you’ll find people making excuses like having babies and sexism, but you’ll find plenty of life changing experiences on both sides, jail/criminal ratios etc, hyper competent individuals are not the norm for any sex but it would be what you choose to be competent in (personal choice) that would really be the difference.

They’re better at swinging big sticks at each other and they’re more prone to wanting to do that. The Patriarchy^TM is basically just the result of thousands of years of history in which who was best at hitting each other with big sticks determined who got to be in charge of stuff. It’s really interesting history though.

In the early tribal phase of human civilisation, being able to hit other tribes with big sticks was very important, because if you didn’t hit them with big sticks and take all their stuff, they’d hit you with big sticks and take all your stuff. Now, not everyone is good at hitting people with big sticks. Particularly, women, children and the elderly are generally not very good at hitting people with big sticks, and most adult men weren’t great at it either due to lacking skill, resources or both. It’s also not usually a good idea to hit *all* the people with big sticks, because then you have to do all the work involved in taking their stuff yourself. The first ruling classes were established to solve the problems of how not everyone was good at hitting people with big sticks and how the people who were good at hitting people with big sticks didn’t want to have to do a lot of hard work. In these societies, the people who were bad at hitting people with big sticks would farm and make things, and give some of the stuff they farm and make to the people who are good at hitting people with big sticks. In exchange, the people who are good at hitting people with big sticks would protect the farmers and makers from other people with big sticks who might come to hit them. In practice though, the people who are good at hitting people with big sticks get to call all the shots, because there’s not much you can do about unfair conditions when the people being unfair are better with big sticks than you are.

The people who are good at hitting people with big sticks are naturally going to structure their dominions in a way that will bring the most benefit to themselves, because that’s just how people work. They appreciate sustainability and stability, and they also appreciate things going their way. One thing that is very beneficial to men is when women are exclusive property. Back then, children died a lot because they sucked at not getting diseases. This means you need a lot of children to have a good chance of your children being as successful as you are, and it takes time for women to make children. You also really don’t want the child that gets made to be someone else’s child, because that just means more competition against your own children. This means that humans have evolved to make men quite competitive. They innately want to maximise the success rate of their own sperm. This is where the perceived value of the virgin comes from – the first person to impregnate a virgin is definitely going to get their own baby, there’s no chance of getting anyone else’s. So, these societies become structured in ways that we would consider deeply problematic today, in which women were property who existed to propagate the genes of the people who are good at hitting people with big sticks. This is also why the god in the Old Testament is a right wanker who orders his followers to commit genocides and mass rapes – because this was the most effective strategy a tribe could assume back then, and it was useful to justify these actions through a godly figure.

Another useful thing you can do when you’re organising your society to work best for the people who are good at hitting people with big sticks is codify that women are property and should be treated as such, with restrictions on what they’re allowed to do. A society in which the life of a woman comprises of waiting to get married, getting married and then having a bunch of kids is a society that optimises the propagation of genes for the people who are good at hitting people with big sticks. This is mostly designed to benefit the ruling class, but since there are people who look like they’re good at hitting people with big sticks in the peasant class too, these people also benefit from these rules, and you get peasants marrying and peasant societies deliberately advantaging men too. This becomes ingrained in the core of the culture through gender roles, and we’re still seeing remnants of this societal structure today, although it is so much better today in most countries that it’s not really comparable.

Also, a thing to bear in mind here is that the power in the modern world is not new power. The story of the self-made millionaire is largely a myth. Of course, some people do it, but the vast majority of the power in the world is power people were born into, power accumulated by hitting people with big sticks and passed down through the generations even as hitting people with big sticks stopped being important. Sometimes this is through direct and obvious benefits like large inheritances and trust funds, but it’s also through the benefits of your parents being middle class, which is the single biggest determining factor for whether you will be middle class. The powerful in the modern world are not a reflection of the society of the modern world, but are the legacy of past societies.

Most of human history was about who was stronger. If you were the stronger warrior then you were the leader of the tribe……….. because you killed the last leader due to the whole being stronger thing.

The stronger tribe would defeat the weaker tribes.

Stronger kingdoms would defeat weaker kingdoms.

And so on.

For the vast………. VAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAST majority of this it was the men who were the strongest. Most combat was about brute strength and endurance and even an average man was better at those than most women.

So men became the leaders. Women were needed to produce babies for the next generation of warriors and females. If a tribe lost most of its men it could still survive because each man could impregnate multiple women. The reverse is not true.

So the men, being the leaders, created systems which benefited them and kept them as leaders. They could divorce their wives if they didn’t give them sons because everything got passed down to sons because daughters were only good as property to be “sold” off for alliances (whether between families, tribes, kingdoms, etc).

(This is generalization but we’ll recognized by intellectually honest people in the field and we’re talking about general men and women not specific people)

Men are predisposed to:

1. Focus on things. Ie build things that help millions of people at a time.
2. Build and manage systems (this is similar to #1).
3. Prioritize work. Ie because historically men have been the protectors, if they take time off, the wolf eats your kid and your genetics don’t continue. Thus men focus on doing jobs and will sacrifice family time to protect and provide for the family.
4. Men are less agreeable. And there is a direct inverse correlation between how agreeable you are and how successful you’ll be. Men will say no and demand more than women in general and that is reflected in outcomes.
5. Men have vastly more variability in IQ. That is, men on average are about the same intelligence as women but they’re distributed across the bell curve more widely. There are vastly more ultra intelligent men as a percentage of the population as women. But there are also vastly more incredibly stupid men and those with autism etc. it balances itself out in Aggregate but the edges define the extreme success of CEOs etc. and the number of extraordinary men versus women their will be. (No one is exactly sure as to why this distribution is the way it is)

Women are predisposed to:

1. Focus on people not things. This isn’t worse, it’s different. But the side effect of that choice is that it doesn’t scale and thus is less profitable.
2. Because women focus on people they also focus on relationships not systems. This means that their skills don’t scale to managing thousands of people but makes them excellent middle management directly working with people. But the side effect is they’re not running Fortune 500 companies as a result and thus don’t get paid or recognized the same because their impact is less.
3. Women choose family over work. As an example, in Sweden, the most egalitarian society in the world, women actually chose to stay at home and care for children MORE as the society empowered them to make work decisions more proving that it isn’t a social construct, it’s a choice women make. Further, because of this, the average woman works 8.7 hours a week less than men in the US. That lower number of hours directly affects the amount of work product and productivity per dollar meaning men get promoted because they do more work for every dollar paid to them.

4. Women choose to have children and biology requires that they’re the primary care giver. In the US, women before they have children actually make more than men on average. It’s only after having children and losing the 4ish months and shortening hours that they start making less which is directly related to experience and #3.
5. Women don’t fight for raises and in general avoid conflict which means that as a side effect women are less likely to fix a problem they see especially if the established way has special interests that want to keep it that way. Virtually all mega success and this opportunity to become CEOs of big companies comes from identifying entrenched special interests and disrupting that by fighting against the special interests and beating them with a better idea. (Think Uber and SpaceX) That requires massive conflict. Women avoid conflict.
6. As a total there are vastly fewer women with an IQ over 140 than men. After 130 the gap starts growing and he far end is almost entirely dominated by men. IQ directly correlates to success and income. (The inverse is also true. There are vastly more homeless men and men with IQs so low even the military won’t take them because it costs more than they get from them even as a grunt on the front lines)

Also note that the above ENTIRELY explains the supposed wage gap which is “take all females and multiply by their IRS reporting and do the same for men”. It doesn’t account for choices nor fields and when you do, all other things being equal (experience, job position, hours worked, etc) women make slightly more than men. And worse, when they break things down by job, it isn’t broken down by actual job. The government decides equivalent jobs. Ie they consider a secretary and a carpenter to be the same even though the carpenter’s job is vastly more physically demanding and dangerous and in MUCH higher demand. Same for loggers.

The above of course is pretty obviously tied to genetics and genetic transmission success. A man following the general choices above WITH a woman following the general choices above sets up a highly successful unit that ensures the best chance for children to succeed. You also see this in the success sequence for children to adults for this very reason. Sadly we ignore this and then try and blame everyone else for our choices. Do these 5 things in this order and you have a 74% chance of success reaching the middle class regardless of race, sex or gender:

1. Graduate high school (see my list above and you’ll see obviously why both in control and because of genetics)
2. Get a job.
3. Get married. (This both sets up the tandem for success and significantly increases combined income while cutting overhead thus allowing you to afford the rest)
4. Don’t be convicted of a felony. Jail kills earning potential more than anything else.
5. Have kids.

And if your spouse does the same you as a unit have a 94% chance regardless of race, sex or gender or teaching the middle class in the US.

And more than any other criteria for boys especially but also girls, having an intact family with a father in the house determines success and the likelihood of being able to follow the success sequence. I’ll leave it to you to look up the statistics on broken homes by various demographics.

It’s true that stature plays a role. However, it’s inexcusable not to include the well documented differences in temperament (>90% of prisoners are male) and career choice between men and women. This, I believe, best explains the modern environment. There are other factors, too, such as child-rearing which can inhibit career prospects.

I think it also needs to be acknowledged that the push for women in high-ranking positions is relatively recent. It does take time to move up the ladder and the top that ladder is still mostly made up of tail end Boomers and Early Gen X. Things are changing, but in many ways takes longer than some people want.

My personal opinion is that people should rise to the top on merit, and that being a decent person is why more important than the colour of your skin of which genitals you have.