Sperm Are Cheap – Eggs Are Expensive

Sperm Are Cheap – Eggs Are Expensive

by | Jul 13, 2024 | Biological Difference, Dating & Mating Economy, Gender Politics, Relationship Issues, Sexuality, Uncategorized

“Men tend to want many more sex partners than women do.”
~ Susan Hughes, Archives of Sexual Behavior (2021)

 

Most of my writing these days is in response to authors on Medium who write about relationships, gender, and sexuality. This community is 80% female. Their “voice” leans feminist and culturally progressive. Carlyn Beccia has been a favorite in this space. She covers many subjects, deeply considered with humor and aplomb — writing that sparkles underneath her own unique illustrations. Occasionally we butt heads; she dismisses and sometimes denigrates evolutionary psychology (EP) and my understanding of mate selection science.

Her latest piece was “Nature Makes Men More Promiscuous is an Evolutionary Biology Myth.” This piece is mainly about the number of sex partners reported by men and women. Beccia asserts that men and women are equally promiscuous, as revealed by research from evolutionary biology. I could not let this go unchallenged. Below is my response to her. My post would make more sense if you read her piece, but I think my statements of fact and opinion stand alone in their retort and rebuke.

Promiscuity Assertions Hurt Women More Than Men.

Becca’s first point. I agree. “Slut-shaming” is unfair and uninformed.

Darwin Revisited

Charles Darwin was not right about everything related to non-human species. Still, in the human population, he was right in his speculations about male desire and interest in multiple partners for sexual reproduction.

“Just So Stories” — An Old Criticism of EP Methodology

“Just so stories” is a “bullshit” (using Beccia’s aggressive word choice) and snarky framing of evolutionary science methodology – a worn-out trope. What Beccia describes as a “just so story” (women’s biological investment in children, etc.) is the way it is. Yes, as Beccia notes sarcastically, “sperm are cheap, and eggs are expensive.”

Women Are More Choosey – Full Stop

Women are more “choosey” than men for sexual partners. This comports directly with the evolutionary science of sexual selection and pretty much every single study of modern sexual selection dynamics, including the latest studies of dating apps. To think otherwise is indeed “bullshit.” (Speaking to Beccia) “hell, use yourself and your girlfriends as anecdotal evidence.” Men find the majority of women attractive. Women find the majority of men unattractive.

Women Are Just Not as Promiscuous as Men

Women are just not as promiscuous as men; that would make no sense for children’s survival and the need for paternal certainty. (I will not itemize here the numerous studies that show the difference between men’s and women’s sex “drive” as evidenced by thoughts, fantasies, spontaneous arousal, masturbation, and willingness to engage in sex.) Interestingly, Beccia and other female authors want to take on the badge of promiscuity. To prove what point? A sign of female empowerment? A way to assert that there are no sexual or biological differences between men and women?

Women Do Have More Opportunity

Women have enormously more choices, sexual access, and sexual opportunity than men, but they generally do not act on it. Sexual opportunity is different from a sexual mating strategy. Men and women are typically on opposite sides of that coin.

Rates of Infidelity and Number of Affairs

Rates of infidelity are indeed narrowing between men and women. Recent studies show that men cheat with a more significant number of partners, and women are choosier even in this domain, typically having a single affair.

Numbers on the Bed Post

EP researcher David Schmitt studied 16,288 individuals residing in 52 nations and found that men said they wanted 1.87 sex partners over the next month; women wanted only .78. (He also found agreement of findings across all nations and cultures.)

Ten Partners or One Partner Ten times?

Susan Hughes’ research (2021) in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found (in a very clever design of choosing, in a continuum, between sex with one partner ten times vs. sex with ten partners one time) “in most cases, the women allotted all ten dates to only one or two men.” Concluding, “The results of this study seem to confirm the observation that men tend to want many more sex partners than women do.”

Male Overestimation and Over-perception Bias

Yes, men overestimate the number of their partners, and women underestimate their number because of the bias against female promiscuity. Men’s inflation is somewhat related to the psychological phenomenon of over-perception bias – a belief that women may possibly (aka the movie Dumb and Dumber) be interested in them romantically and sexually. This sexual section phenomenon is related to error management theory; a man cannot afford a false negative result: NOT pursuing a woman (egg) who might otherwise be interested if a pursuit had taken place.

The Difference in Reporting Numbers of Sex Partners Has Four Causes

1. Promiscuity bias (above), also cited by Beccia in the Alexander and Fisher “bogus pipeline” study. That study had an unimpressive subject sample of 293 General Psychology students.

Most Importantly!

2. Women are having sex with the same lucky small subset of men.

Studies from dating apps reveal that the top 78% of women are fighting over the top 20% of men.

Essentially, multiple women are having sex with the same man: one man has sex with five women. He accurately reports five partners. Each of the five women accurately reports one partner.

Reproductive Variance

Reporting of the number of sex partners is not only influenced by the overreporting by men and underreporting by women but, more importantly, by the operation of a “micro” version of the macro reproductive variance phenomenon, i.e., more women are having sex than the number of men having sex, by perhaps a large margin. Researchers call this the modern male sexual deficit. The number of women who have sex is more than the number of men who have sex.

More Mothers Than Fathers Throughout History

The macro reproductive variance refers to the variability of reproductive success for human females and males throughout human history. The difference between men who do not reproduce (the have-nots) and those who reproduce prolifically (the haves) is vast. DNA studies by Jason Wilder and colleagues revealed that approximately 80% of women in human history have reproduced (have children), compared to 40% of men. More women are mothers than men are fathers. The human population is descended from twice as many women as men. A few men are siring many children (the Genghis Khan effect).

College Dating Environment – Slightly Better Deal for the Average Guy

One unique dating environment (mating pool) is on modern college campuses, where the sex ratio is approximately 60% women to 40% men. On college campuses, women lower their standards a little bit. They are slightly less choosey. With that ratio, more men of lower mate value/attractiveness get to have sex than in the average population. But even there, the most attractive guys get most of the action.

On the Other Hand – More Women Are Having Sex With Each Other!

3. The mathematical asymmetry of the number of reported partners by men and women (in some reports) is also because more women are having sex with women and not men!

4. Finally, according to Kristen Mitchell (Journal of Sex Research), men might include non-penetrative sexual encounters in their tally of sex partners. Women did not. Hey women, cunnilingus and fellatio are not sex?

Male Promiscuity Can Negatively Affect Genetic Legacy

It is true (as Beccia implies) that there is a point at which male promiscuity negatively affects the survival of his children. Children need the support of both parents to secure a genetic legacy.

Will Not Debate Bateman’s Principle Here*

I will spare the reader an attempt to unpack Beccia’s assertion that geneticist Angus Bateman cherry-picked his data or the integrity of Patricia Gowaty’s biology lab at U.C.L.A. But I don’t believe the studies of fruit flies or even other primates are decisively instructive or preclude the vast evidence related to human sexual selection and reproduction. Yes, the research on the mating habits of non-monogamous female birds is notable, but birds are not homo sapiens. Humans have a 9-month gestation and prolonged infant dependency.

The Coolidge Effect** Is Real

But if you want to use primates, the Coolidge Effect holds up. And it is operative for human males. Novelty works for both sexes, but it is compelling for human males. Beccia’s post does not really dispute the truth of the Coolidge Effect. It is worth noting that women need more novelty inside a pair bond than that required by a man because male sexuality is less complicated.

The Honeymoon Effect

The “honeymoon effect” – bonds caused by the “love hormone,” oxytocin, is also real. But oxytocin is more instrumental to women’s sexuality and sexual functioning than to men’s. (This leads to the conversation about the female orgasm as a male mate selection strategy –- female orgasm increases the chance of being chosen and being retained as a mate.)

Honeymoon Effect Coexists with Coolidge

Bottomline: the honeymoon effect does not preclude the male need for partner novelty; it does not contradict the operation of the Coolidge Effect.

What is Beccia’s Beef – Really?

Finally, I do not understand Beccia’s psychological schema around these issues. Why does she refuse to accept the evolutionary and biological science of human sexual selection and human sexuality? Why does she misrepresent the claim and evidence of evolutionary psychology? EP is not “bullshit.” “Boys will be boys” is never uttered by reputable researchers in this field. Beccia is an empowered woman. She is probably sexier and more sexual than average. Good for her. Many men desire her, no doubt (she is quite attractive), but I bet she chooses very few. Beccia probably exists on the robust side of the bell curve from the average woman in terms of sex drive/desire, access, and socio-sexuality.

Rectify Inequities – But Don’t Blur Biological Distinctions Between Male and Female

I have studied the hard biological science of aggregate populations throughout human history. I study researchers who do not, as a rule, have an agenda or bias to shape the nature-nurture debate in favor of women to rectify historical power inequities. The Beccia post is representative of this bias. Let’s rectify power inequities without blurring the biological distinctions between males and females. 

*Bateman’s principle (in evolutionary biology): since males produce millions of sperm cells with little effort and females invest much higher energy levels to nurture a relatively small number of eggs, the female plays a more significant role in their offspring’s reproductive success. Bateman’s paradigm views females as the limiting factor of parental investment, over which males will compete to mate successfully.

**The Coolidge effect is a biological phenomenon seen in animals whereby males exhibit renewed sexual interest whenever a new female is introduced, even after sex with prior but still available sexual partners.

 

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
Of Boys and Men: STEM Careers, Gender Equality Paradox, and Pay Gap – Part 6

Of Boys and Men: STEM Careers, Gender Equality Paradox, and Pay Gap – Part 6

by | Mar 12, 2023 | Biological Difference, Gender Politics, Men's Issues, Uncategorized

It’s not that gender equality discourages girls from pursuing science. It’s that it allows them not to if they’re not interested. ~ Olga Khazan, Atlantic.

In this final blog post Of Boys and Men, I will discuss three issues that Richard Reeves addresses in his book related to gender or sex differences and the political discourse surrounding them: STEM careers, the “gender-equality paradox,” and the pay gap. Reeves’ analysis of STEM careers adds new insights. His discussion of the “gender-equality paradox” and the pay gap is based on years of prior research. The issues involved in STEM careers, the gender-equality paradox, and the pay gap are interrelated and help us further understand the boy’s and men’s crisis, especially as they reveal aggregate gender preferences.

Should We Expect 50-50 parity in STEM Careers?

There is a strong movement to get more girls into STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math). Women now account for 45% of the life and physical scientists working in the U.S., up from fewer than 20% in 1980. Among engineers, the proportion of women has risen from 4% to 15%. The tech industry has seen much smaller gains in recent decades, with women’s representation stuck at about 25%. Overall, women now account for 27% of workers in these occupations, up from 8% in 1970. [1]

But should we expect 50-50 parity in these jobs?

Men Will More Likely Choose STEM Career Paths

Reeves says we should not expect parity in STEM jobs because, “on average, men are more attracted to things, women to people.” Even under conditions of perfect gender equality, more men than women will likely choose STEM career paths, not because of sexism or socialization but because of fundamental differences in preferences.

Gender-Equality Paradox

In 2018, two researchers, Gijsbert Stoet and David Geary, showed that women in more gender-equal countries like Finland and Norway were less likely to take university courses in STEM subjects. Stoet and Geary called this the “gender-equality paradox.” They speculated that in countries with high incomes and strong welfare states, the economic incentives to pursue STEM careers might be lower, allowing women to choose courses and jobs that more closely match their personal preferences. Stoet and Geary found a similar pattern for sex differences in expected occupations among adolescents in OECD countries. [2].

Greater Opportunity to Express Inherent Biological Differences

Researchers Armin Falk and Johannes Hermle studied sex differences in specific preferences, such as a willingness to take risks, patience, altruism, positive and negative reciprocity, and trust, across a range of countries. They concluded that “a more egalitarian distribution of material and social resources enables women and men to independently express gender-specific preferences.” In another study, researcher Petri Kajonius got a similar result. He speculated:

A possible explanation is that people in more progressive and equal countries have a greater opportunity to express inherent biological differences.

The gender-equality paradox demonstrates that greater sexual freedom and gender equality produce larger, not smaller, psychological sex differences.

American Income Gains Due to Rise in Female Earnings

Reeves reports that forty percent (40%) of women now earn more than the typical man, up from just 13% in 1979. “All the income gains that middle-class American families have experienced since 1970 are due to the rise in women’s earnings.”

Women Account for Over Half of the Managerial Positions in the US

Women account for nearly 52% of all management and professional-level jobs in the U.S. economy. [3] Many previously male-dominated professions, including medicine and financial management, are rapidly tilting female, especially among younger professionals. The proportion of female lawyers has increased tenfold, from 4% in 1980 to 43% in 2020. Most revealing, if not astounding: women are currently in charge of the law review and law journal at ALL top sixteen law schools in US. [4]

Unmarried and Childless Women Under 30 Make More Than Men

The Research Advisor Group found (2010) that unmarried childless women under 30 make 8% more than men of that age group in the largest American cities. The gap in NYC, Los Angeles, and San Diego was 17%, 12%, and 15% respectively. According to recent studies and trends reported by Reeves, these gaps have gotten wider since 2010.

The Pay Gap Evaporates Under Scrutiny

Conservatives point to studies showing that once a range of factors is considered – hours, industry, experience, seniority, and location – the pay gap evaporates. This is supported by research that appeared in the Journal of Economic Literature (2021).

Women Work Different Jobs with Fewer Continuous Hours

To his credit, Reeves quotes the foremost authority on the pay gap, Harvard economist Claudia Goldin. She is never cited or positively viewed by the feminist Left. The factors listed above concern what Goldin calls “occupational segregation” and “temporal inflexibility.” This means the aggregate pay gap of 82% for women across the economy is caused by women working in different jobs and not as many continuous hours.

Reeves says, “there is certainly very little evidence that women are paid less than men for doing the same work in the same way.” He continues:

Women are paid less because they do different work, or work differently, or both.

Reeves’ statements could be argued anecdotally or on the margins – but the research supports them.

Women Are Clustered in Lower Paying Jobs

Reeves points out that women are more clustered in lower-paying occupations and industries. That, he says, explains a third of the pay gap. “Clustering in lower-paying jobs” is occupational segregation.

Reeves Claims Institutional Sexism But Does Not Elaborate

There may be some evidence of bias toward hiring men (instead of women) in some occupations, but it is hard to prove. Reeves says institutional sexism (against women) exists, but he does not define what that is or cite research on that point. He has the most to say about the bias against hiring men in elementary education.

His claim of institutional sexism (against women) could be anchored to studies that try to uncover unconscious gender stereotypes for first-time leadership applicants, but that research was perhaps too far afield of his central message. His claims of institutional sexism seem, in this case, to be a bit of virtue signaling for his audience.

Reeves Puts Adjusted Pay Gap at 5% – But Does Not Give Detail

Reeves says various studies put the adjusted gender pay gap at about 5%. He must mean the gap caused by bias and discrimination, but he does not fully explain the various causes or examples that create this 5%. Even 5% is vastly different from the war cry of a gender pay gap of 18% caused by discrimination. It is just not true.

The Pay Gap is a Parenting Gap!

Most importantly, as repeated over and over by Goldin and other economists, the pay gap is a parenting gap! The gap between the time men versus women give to parenting is partly what is meant by “temporal inflexibility.”

Women take time off to raise children, drop out of a career trajectory, and reduce the number of hours worked. There is also some occupation segregation going on — women choose different jobs when they are raising children.

The earnings potential for women who do not have children looks similar to that for men.
~ Richard Reeves

The Bus and Train Drivers Study

In a study of bus and train drivers working for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Harvard economists Valentin Bolotnyy and Natalia Emmanuel found that women, on average, earn $0.89 for every dollar earned by male peers.

But their analysis revealed that this pay gap “can be explained entirely by the fact that, while having the same choices in the workplace, women and men make different choices.”

The men were twice as likely to work overtime (which pays extra), even on short notice. They also took fewer hours of unpaid leave. Among train drivers with children, the gaps were even wider. Fathers wanted more overtime pay; mothers wanted more time off.

Women Reduce Hours If Their Husbands Make the Bucks

Not surprisingly, in another study of University of Chicago MBAs, women with the highest-earning husbands were most likely to reduce their working hours.

Few Women in the C-suite – a Red Herring?

Reeves says more work is needed for women’s economic success. He cites that only one in five C-suite company directors is a woman, and just 41 of the 500 Fortune 500 firms have a female CEO. He seems to forget what he just “learned” from Claudia Goldin and others that explain that differential.

How Many Women Want to be C-suite Directors?

How large is the pool of women who want to be C-suite directors and are qualified in direct comparison to men? How many women have worked enough continuous hours on a career trajectory to legitimately compete for those positions?

Yes, Women Are Equally Talented, But…

I would be the first to say that many of these women are equally talented, if not more so, than the men around them. I would be the first to say that we would be better off as a country if more women were in positions of leadership. But women have to want this – and there is one singular correction:

Change corporate culture to support working mothers – provide more paid childcare, after-school care, and leave without a penalty to their career. That is how to correct the pay/parenting gap!

Mate Selection Preference is the Undiscussable Infrastructure of the Gap

Here is what is “undiscussable:” women must be more willing to partner with and sexually desire men who make less money than them to close the aggregate pay gap and pay differentials in top management. Women may need to prefer men who will stay home and not make any money.

But, as long as women prefer to mate with men at the top of the corporate hierarchy, men will continue to work long, uninterrupted hours and compete against each other to be in the C-suites. The gap at the top will remain intact.

 

Notes

[1] The trend has been the other way regarding male representation in health, education, administration, and literacy (HEAL) jobs. In 2019, 26% were held by men, down from 35% in 1980, for full-time workers aged between 25-54.

[2] OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries include Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

[3] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey (2018),” as reported in The Women’s Leadership Gap, November 20, 2018.

[4] 16 top law schools ranked by U.S News and World Reports that have women in charge of their law reviews and law journals: Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Georgetown, Duke, University of Chicago, Columbia, NYU, University of Pennsylvania, University of Virginia, University of Michigan, Northwestern, C. Berkeley, Cornell, UCLA, and University of Texas, Austin.

Appendix

Moody’s (just released) March 2023 Report on Gender Management Gap

Moody’s Analytics released (March 2023) their report “Close the Gender Gap to Unlock Productivity Gains.” The report is focused on the proportion of women in senior and middle management positions, stating that improving gender parity in management positions can unlock higher economic prosperity, particularly in developing nations. Moody’s makes the undisputable observation that women have much lower representation in mining and construction than in health, social work, and education. Their data shows that women are 67.1% of leadership in health and social work and 61% in education. Moody’s opines that women achieve higher educational attainment than men but are significantly underrepresented in middle and senior management roles – causing an “underskilling” of women. Moody’s outlines the different choices made by women in education and work, but does not acknowledge the predictable lack of leadership in fields that women choose not to enter. Some pundits point to this report as evidence of gender biases or inequalities that have placed women in lower-paying occupations. Yet, there is no evidence in this report that women are placed (or forced) into lower-paying occupations. Moody’s says women are less likely to ask for promotions (as supported by other studies) and that women are held to higher standards than men. But no examples of the latter are in this report. (I have addressed related challenges for women in Double Bind Dilemmas for Women in Leadership.) Where Moody’s hits a home run is in recognizing what Richard Reeves outlines in Of Boys and Men. Moody’s says, “such policies as enforcing flexible working conditions, providing affordable childcare [including after-school], and providing maternity and paternity leave can help to drive change in the right direction.”

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
Solutions to the Crisis Of Boys and Men – Part 4.1

Solutions to the Crisis Of Boys and Men – Part 4.1

by | Feb 9, 2023 | Biological Difference, Gender Politics, Sexuality, Uncategorized

 

In Of Boys and Men, Richard Reeves suggests broad proposals to address the male malaise in education, work, training, childcare, legal support, and policy inequities. Reeves addresses arguments against his proposals and considers related funding issues, but he does not attempt to navigate the complex politics needed for execution. Nevertheless, these five solutions offer a possible roadmap out of the crisis of boys and men.  Part 4.2 (upcoming) will describe nine more solutions, (6-14).

1. The most controversial proposal by Reeves: “redshirt” the boys. 

An equitable education system will be one that recognizes natural sex differences, especially the fact that boys are at a developmental disadvantage to girls at critical points in their schooling. ~ Richard Reeves

On average, the prefrontal cortex and cerebellum, which are involved in self-regulation, mature much earlier in girls than in boys. This fact has been dramatically under-reported and not addressed by our early childhood and primary school educational systems. For more information on boys’ and girls’ brain development, see the upcoming Part 5.1 in this series.

A Double Dose of Pre-K for the Boys

Reeves proposes that we enroll boys in a universal pre-K program at the same age as girls but give them an extra year before they move on.  Boys would get a double dose of pre-K.

“Red Shirting” – Start Elementary School a Year Later   

Boys would thus begin their regular elementary schooling a year later than girls; this is called “redshirting.” The main reason for starting boys later is so they will be a year older when they get to middle school and high school.

Children Older Than their Classmates Do Better

Redshirting got significant attention in 2008 when Malcolm Gladwell (Outliers) presented evidence that children older than their classmates do better on academic tests and in life generally. Gladwell argued that being either old or young within a class cohort leads children “into patterns of achievement and underachievement, encouragement and discouragement, that stretch on and on for years.”

Teachers and Affluent Parents Do It the Most

Redshirting is reasonably common – 12% in one survey. Parents gave these reasons for holding a child (majority boys) back: “too young,” “not emotionally ready,” and “not academically ready.”  Interestingly, teachers redshirt their school-age children at a higher rate (15%). Also worth noting: children with affluent parents were twice as likely to delay the start of school as those from low-income households.

Eight Grade is a Key Marker

Studies show that being a year older (for boys and girls) positively impacted test scores in the eighth grade, reduced the risk of repeating a grade before high school, and improved the chances of taking the SAT or ACT at the end of high school. The benefits for boys were at least twice as big as for girls on all outcome measures through 8th grade, and by high school, only the boys saw any gains.

Gap Between Black and White – Cruel Irony

Predictably, there is a gap between white and black children using or accessing redshirting. Reeves is quite adamant about this problem (irony) of inequity: “The largest gains would be for those who are least likely to be redshirted now, especially boys from lower-income families and Black boys.

2. Put more men in front of pre-K, primary, and middle school classrooms.

The male share of K-12 teachers is now 24%, down from 33% at the beginning of the 1980s. Male teachers are exceedingly scarce in elementary and middle schools. Early-year education is almost an all-female environment. Only 3% of pre-K and kindergarten teachers are men. There are now twice as many women flying U.S. military planes as there are men teaching kindergarten (as a share of the profession.)  There are barriers to recruiting men for pre-K, including the stigma of leaving a man alone with a child and being wary of physical contact. Also, males (in aggregate) are less naturally inclined than women to prefer teaching pre-secondary children.

Male Teachers Boost Academic Outcomes for Boys

Evidence suggests that male teachers boost boys’ academic outcomes, especially in subjects like English. We especially need more Black men in teaching and men teaching English. Female teachers in classrooms are more likely than male teachers to see boys as disruptive, while male teachers tend to have a more positive view of their capabilities. The benefit to boys from male teachers may also be a role-model effect. Black boys seem to benefit most from having a black teacher.

Male Teachers and the Mating Market

Left out of this discussion by Reeves is that male K-12 teachers do not make enough money to compete successfully in the mating market — a mostly undiscussable fact of female mate preference. These teachers, by natural inclination or perception, are just not attractive (alpha or masculine) enough for high-mate-value women.*

3. Boost funding for male-friendly vocational education and training.

We need a massive investment in male-friendly vocational education and training. We need more CTE (career and technical training) schools.

Boys and Men Need More of a Hands-on Approach

Our educational system is tilted toward the standard academic track, up to and including a 4-year college. There has been a persistent undervaluing of vocational learning, and Reeves says this is harmful in general but especially for boys and men. On average, male students seem to do better with a “hands-on” and practical approach to learning and benefit the most from a vocational path.

High School Curricula and Funding for Community Colleges 

High school curricula need more “hands-on” elements – incorporating more career and technical training, leading to more stand-alone technical schools. Community colleges can offer vocational courses that lead to higher employment and earnings in health, business, and STEM. Reeves recommends that at least 20 billion a year be diverted toward community colleges through a new federal grant program, along with incentives to ensure that students complete their studies, especially in subjects leading to the best job prospects.

More Apprenticeships Are Needed

Beyond high school, there is a strong case for expanding apprenticeships. The National Apprenticeship Act, which passed the House in 2021, would invest 3.5 billion over five years to create nearly a million new apprenticeships. Currently, the U.S. ranks very low among nations for the number of adults taking apprenticeships.

4. Get more men into health, education, administration, and literacy (HEAL) jobs.

(Related to #2 above)

HEAL occupations are essentially the opposite of STEM. They include teachers, librarians, nurses, doctors, dental hygienists, home health aides, medical assistants, social workers, mental health counselors, training and development managers, education and childcare administrators, editors, and court clerks.

Gender Imbalance is Growing in Social Work and Psychology

Men account for the minority of social workers (18%) and psychologists (22%), and the gender imbalance is growing.

My psychology career in training and development within Texas state health services gave dramatic evidence of the preponderance of women in these cultures and the problems for men in hiring and advancement. This “reverse discrimination” phenomenon against men has largely been ignored and is a function of organizational identity politics.

Men in HEAL Occupations vs. Women in STEM – the Good and Bad

Overall, women now account for over 27% of STEM workers, up from 13% in 1980. But the trend is the opposite for male representation in HEAL jobs. In 2019, 26% were held by men, down from 35% in 1980 (for full-time workers between the ages of 24-54). Public policy, such as the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), encourages women into STEM.   But there are no programs to help men into HEAL.

Identity Economics – Good for Women, Not Good for Men

In 2000, Rachel Kranton and George Akerlof created a new scholarly field of “identity economics.”  Kranton and Akerlof found that breaking prescribed gender identity norms comes at a cost to an individual.

They argued that feminism should reduce “identity loss” for women choosing to work traditionally male jobs and for men working pink-collar jobs and in the home. But only the first objective has been confirmed.  As reported in Part 2.2 of this series: “expectations of wives’ homemaking may have eroded, but the husband-as-breadwinner norm persists.” (Alexandra Killewald, American Sociological Review).

Male Nurses are Stigmatized

The proportion of nurses who are men has gone from 10 to 15% in the last twenty years. But men working in nursing report stigmatization and stereotyping on a regular basis. Male nurses are often stereotyped as effeminate or homosexual or simply as failed doctors, according to a study in Canada.

More Bias Against Hiring Men into “Female” Jobs

There is more gender bias among employers against hiring men into predominantly female jobs than the other way around (2019 study by Jill Yavorsky in December Social Forces). HEAL occupations remain highly gendered in popular culture. Another study appearing in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science found that gender roles in TV advertisements are most unbalanced when it comes to the portrayal of men and women in jobs. Reeves asserts that we have to reduce what Harvard economist (and expert on the pay gap) Claudia Goldin calls the “aura of gender” that especially “attaches” to female-dominated occupations. 

Give Men 2:1 Advantage in Health and Education Jobs

Reeves proposes that among candidates for teaching posts in health and education, a 2:1 preference should be given to male applicants. This is the same preference given to female tenure-track professors in STEM fields, according to a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2015.

5. Increase pay for HEAL jobs.

Increasing pay levels in critical HEAL occupations, like social work, counseling, and teaching, would likely attract more men into these roles and help the women working in them already.

*Anecdotally, it is more likely (as predicted by mate selection science) that a male pre-K teacher is gay and not heterosexual. Gay elementary teachers do not lose as much (if any) mate value in the dating marketplace as do straight-male elementary school teachers.

 

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Presentation, and Biological Sex

Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Presentation, and Biological Sex

by | Jul 13, 2021 | Biological Difference, Gender Politics, Sexuality, Uncategorized

“Everyone under 25 thinks they are queer.”

~   The Bisexual (Hulu)

Mating Straight Talk (MST) attempts to scientifically demonstrate the evolved behavioral sex differences between men and women and explain human mate selection; it does so because heterosexual (behaviorally) men and women produce human children and the race of homo sapiens on earth.

MST affirms “straight” male and female sexuality as drivers of procreation and protection of offspring but recognizes outliers of sexual orientation that must be explained or incorporated into the understanding of the forces that propel sexual reproduction.  We cannot fully understand “straight” sexuality without considering the proportion, “causes,” and role that homosexuality (and all apparent variations of sexual orientation along a continuum) may play in the evolution of human species — or at least the role of sexual orientation variations in contemporary dating and mating.

Starting with a Basic Foundation of Sexual Orientation

In the coming months, I will write about the complex and sometimes confusing world of sexual orientation, gender identity, identity presentation, and the biology of sex. I will start by addressing a “basic foundation”: sexual orientation among cisgender individuals – (people who identify with the biological sex that they were assigned at birth).

Cisgender Is Subjective

While cisgender individuals are the statistical norm (mode), even “cisgender” (as a category of gender identity) has a psychological component. Identity is always subjective and personal.  For example, a person can have an xx chromosomal/genetic makeup, female external genitalia, female internal reproductive organs, be considered a girl by the hospital, midwife, and parents, yet still “choose” to identify as a man.  However, being cisgender theoretically says nothing about sexual orientation — nothing about who that person desires and wants to have sex with (or why).   Sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender presentation often get conflated and confused in the immense vocabulary of “identity” parlance.  Later, I will introduce the variations of gendered identity beyond cisgender and biological sex (i.e., “male” and “female.”)

But to simplify, let’s begin with sexual orientation among cisgender identified individuals and consider the following “foundational” spectrum:

Orientation Spectrum
  • Homosexuality (gay/lesbian): (Near) exclusive sexual attraction to, or sexual activity with, the same sex.
  • Bisexuality: Some proportion of attraction to both the opposite sex and the same sex (roughly within a 30-70% split one way or another as a conceptual null hypothesis) exhibited by internal experience, desire, and behavior depending upon the context and a host of factors.
  • “Mostly straight” women:  I will also call them “hetero-flexible.”  These are self-identified heterosexual women who express an “occasional” or infrequent feeling of desire for another women or behavior of sexual attraction to another woman.  Along with outright bisexuality, this orientation designation draws from a broad spectrum of research on women’s sexual fluidity that is dramatically on the increase among Gen Y.1 (25-29 years old) and Gen Z (up to 24 years of age).
  • “Mostly straight” men: Based on the book and research by Rich Savin-Williams at Cornell, these are supposedly self-identified heterosexual men who occasionally have a desire for and sexual behavior with other men. For me, this is the most interesting (and perhaps controversial) category to investigate on the sexual orientation spectrum.  What does evolutionary psychology have to say about these men?
  • Heterosexual men and women: Men and women who are sexually attracted to the opposite sex.  They are the most common orientation and the subject of most research on sexual selection in evolutionary psychology.
  • Where do asexuals, “pansexuals,” and “demi-sexuals” fit along the above spectrum? Are they an actual orientation?  All of this will be explored in future posts.
Sources of Information

These are broad and complex topics studied and researched primarily within the field of “gender studies.”  I will draw upon just a fraction of the available literature, including:

Books:

  • Lisa Diamond’s classic Sexual Fluidity, Understanding Women’s Love and Desire (2008).
  • Rich Savin-Williams’ ground-breaking book, Mostly Straight, Sexual Fluidity Among Men (2017).
  • Jennifer Baumgardner’s Look Both Ways — Bisexual Politics (2007).

Popular – Lay Critiques:

  • “The Science of Gender (Time Magazine, Special Edition, 2020).
  • “The Gender Revolution” (National Geographic, Special Edition, Jan. 2017).
  • Writings and resources from the website Them and writings in the categories of relationship and sexuality appearing in Medium.

Last But Not Least — from Evolutionary Psychology:

  • Numerous critiques, studies, and articles.

 

Commentary in Future Posts – Confusion and Inquiry

Here are some of the issues that I will be addressing in the coming months:

What Are the Effects of Increasing Female Sexual Fluidity on Heterosexual Relationships?

  • The “new” bisexuality and hetero-flexibility of women may significantly influence the heterosexual mating marketplace – a marketplace that already favors the erotic power of women to choose and the struggles of men to be chosen.  We would be well served to understand the cultural forces that seem to have increased female sexual fluidity.
  • Is there a drift away from men as sexual partners and less understanding and respect for male heterosexuality? This “drift away” from men appears to be an exercise in preference, not orientation.
  • What are the problems of heterosexual men in attempting to partner with these women? The bisexual behavior of women may be uncovering an inherent female bisexual orientation, or it could also be an expression of a disenchantment with men and masculinity in general.
What Are the Sociological Causes of Increased Declarations of “Queer” Identity?
  • Is the increased number of “queer-identified” (used as a convenient short-cut, catch-all term) young Americans due to new permission to “come out,” or is there some deeper nature-nurture co-evolution expressing itself (albeit with radically accelerated speed)?
  • How much of “queer identity” is a cultural meme related to the need to be unique and “cool” yet also (paradoxically) driven by a need to belong and relieve anxiety?
  • How much of this cultural phenomenon (or even a fast-moving nurture-nurture co-evolutionary effect) is a function of the digital and virtual world where any identity can be tested and tried with relative anonymity? (See episodes of Black Mirror.)
  • How much of “queer identity” reflects a lens of activism projected through the entertainment media: the view of the outlier and artist who is disproportionately “queer,” providing commentary on all these issues through film, TV, and theatre?  Are we being “hammered” by political correctness and snowflake psychology to put a flashing (and exaggerated) neon light on the need for change?  Does this powerful voice of change necessarily represent a proportional expression of the actual numbers of people within the sexual orientation and gender identity communities across the globe?
Conflating of Terms Across Domains of Function

There is a mixture and conflating of orientation, gender identity, biological sex, and gender presentation in the umbrella category of LGBTQ2SIA+.

The LGBTQ2SIA+ acronym is a political designation that identifies anyone who does not identify with the biological sex “assigned to them” at birth or anyone who is not heterosexual.  Therefore, this categorical umbrella has myriad designations of biology and subjective psychological states which overlap and involve redundancy with inadequate definitions and distinctions between them.  (This is one of the reasons why there is much internal strife between political advocacy groups representing these designations.)

Conflating of Biological Sex and Gender Identity in Arguments

In the political advocacy writings about (and from) these groups, there is often a conflating of biological sex and gender identity in their arguments.  On the one hand, the difference between biological sex and gender identity is described.  Then several paragraphs later, gender identity will be used to imply biological sex and vice versa without noting that a blurring of definitions has occurred.

What About Trans-sexuality and Intersex?

The issues, needs, and stories of transsexuals are compelling and deserve our full attention and support. Unpacking the permutations of gender identities and expressions of sexual orientation among transsexuals (and their partners) is one of the most unexplored areas of sexual, psychological research.  One question jumps out in this sphere:  what is the biological basis (genetic, hormonal, neural) for gender dysphoria?

There are differences of opinion about the nature and amount of people who do not present as one biological sex or the other, i.e., as men or women.  These people are called intersex — an umbrella term for several biological and physiological conditions.  Intersex folks are rare, but their political advocacy is not.

Do We Still Have Biological Men and Women?

What we are perhaps left with, inside the advocacy of these various groups, is the idea that a biological “man” and “woman” may no longer make sense.  It is asserted (in some circles) that not only is gender “non-binary” (with literally millions of possibilities of proclaimed identification) but that biological sex is also non-binary (which is NOT to say it is a continuum).  And yet, we need sperm and ovum (unfertilized female gamete) to make the human race on planet earth.

Political Battles and Framing

One might notice that much of the discussion about gender identity, orientation, etc., is framed as a political battle of us vs. them, oppressed vs. oppressor, victim vs. perpetrator. This framing is not incorrect per se; it just obfuscates the knowledge within the biological and psychological sciences.   It heightens the influence of the social and emotional context in the field of human sexuality (especially female sexuality) and reproduction.  The history and certitude of human reproduction and sexual selection are blurred under the weight of group politics and individual expressions for belonging, recognition, and justice.

Why Swim in These Waters?

An attempt to systematically unpack the confusing and ever-evolving narratives of sexual orientation and gender identity is probably a fool’s errand.  Why address issues of sexual orientation in the posts of MST (leaving aside, for now, the multitudinous universe of gender identity variations)?  From the About page on this site, one of the purposes of MST is “to explore and bring clarity to issues of gender politics and the tensions between men and women related to roles, power, and sexual strategies with a focus on honesty, mutual understanding, and complementarity.” The upcoming posts are “on purpose.”

Evolutionary Psychology Joins the Conversation

Conversations about orientation and identity are ubiquitous in current politics, popular psychology, social media, and entertainment.   They are staring us in the face.  Evolutionary psychology and mate selection science must be in the mix with critique and information and thus utilize this cultural moment to expand our knowledge of what it means to be a sexual human being.

Outliers Reveal More About Evolved Sex Differences?

Statistical outliers of orientation may help elucidate the nature of male and female sexuality and the evolved behavior differences between “the sexes.”  The broader conversation about the spectrum of sexual orientation and gender identity may increase our understanding of the co-evolutionary synergy of biology and culture.  Grasping the contours of sexuality in 2021 seems to require exploring the continuum of “queer” identities; it calls for an inquiry about the biology, psychology, and cultural politics of desire and sexual relating.   Certainly, it provokes curiosity about what it means to be human.

Beyond Nature and Nurture

Relatedly, evolutionary psychology (EP) must continue to articulate insights beyond the “nature vs. nurture” debate and explain what is meant by “dual inheritance” or “structured prior-to-experience.”  Also, EP must recognize the possibilities of human potential that come from “naming” (if not discovering) new forms of identity.

The Tenets of Sexual Selection Do Not Change

Alas, perhaps it is not necessary to solve the riddle of homosexuality, bisexuality, and “mostly straight” sexuality (and other variations of orientation) as it relates to evolution and sexual reproduction.  (More of the fool’s errand?  The jury is still out.) The basic tenets of mate choice (sexual selection) for reproduction do not change.  Procreation between biological men and women (sperm and ovum) seems to operate unimpeded on its own terms.

 

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text.