A column exploring how our evolutionary heritage influences current gender relations. 

Manhood must be Achieved

Margaret Mead makes an observation about primitive societies that seems to apply to modern society as well: “[T]he small girl learns that she is a female and that if she simply waits, she will some day be a mother. The small boy learns that he is a male and that if he is successful in manly deeds some day he will be a man, and will be able to show how manly he is.”

Manhood must be achieved. Young boys feel they must prove themselves real men, and strive to do so, while young girls grow naturally into women. In groups, boys requires strength and confidence in one another, and haze those who appear afraid. Girls expect openness and sharing, and are more apt to accept fears and weaknesses.

Why the difference? The key is to view manhood as the strength, courage, honor and success required to win a woman and then to support her. Traditionally, a young man must prove himself to gain a wife, whereas a young woman is marriageable simply because she is young and healthy. So young men gain by striving for manhood, and the trait is passed along, whereas yougn women would not gain by similar strivings.

An analysis of ninety-three cultures shows that boys more than girls are generally taught to show more fortitude and are expected to face hardships without complaining. So male toughness is not simply a Western custom, but is common across cultures. Incidentally, the same analysis shows that girls are taught industriousness, responsibility, and compliance, more so than boys. Cultures typically inculcate the strengths that will benefit each gender. ...

Nature Bonds Men to Support Women

Married men are healthier and happier than single men, and work harder and achieve more. Somewhere around 90 percent of highly successful men are married, whereas closer to 70 percent of highly successful women are married. Men find meaning and purpose in supporting a wife and family, and can be lost without it.

We saw earlier how men bond more strongly to their mates and are more thoroughly shattered when relationships fold. The sex that can least manage the loss is under greater pressure to capitulate when an argument threatens the relationship. In a study of engaged couples, more than 50 percent more men than women reported frequently giving in to a fiance for fear of losing his or her affection.

So far as I can see, this trend continues solidly in marriages. Husbands are more apt to concede in arguments, fearing that their wives will be upset and angry or unbearably cold toward them. Interviews with a hundred stably married couples turned up several instances where women used rational ultimatums, often successfully forcing a husband to choose between changing his conduct or losing his wife and family. Anyone can threaten in the heat of an argument. But few men are rugged enough to give a wife a serious ultimatum, and then leave or throw her out if she refuses to comply.

I have observed that men who voluntarily leave a marriage are almost invariably interested in another woman, while women who leave may or may not be interested in another man. Colleagues have reported similar observations. The paramour provides the vital connection that men require to break the connection with a wife. So men even depend on a woman to leave a marriage, whereas women can act more independently.

Men who divorce get remarried two years later, on average, while women who divorce get remarried on average six years later. The quicker remarriages are often attributed to men having more opportunities. Yet a recent poll of singles finds that 66 percent of men but only 51 percent of women say they want to get married. The higher percentage of men who want marriage suggests enough men for the interested woman. Men are clearly more eager to get remarried, while women are usually willing to take their time and consider their options carefully.

The difference shows up in our favorite expressions of exasperation. Men say, “Women! You can't live with them, you can't live without them.” Women say, “Men! Who needs them?”

It has been suggested that unattached women do better than unattached men because women have more intimate friendships and talk more openly about their feelings. But nature could have programmed men to be more independent – or totally independent, like panthers, hunting a lone and content with no need of companionship. Male dependence on women provides an obvious genetic advantage, holding men in relationships to support their wives and children.

Imagine a primitive community in which the men feel free to leave when they get offended and are self-sufficient enough to live out on their own. If their wives complain too much, these men go out to hunt, eat what they bag instead of bringing it back to camp, tell jokes over the campfire, never worry about their wives, and never come back. Their women are free to mate with other men who will provide for them, although some may starve and die. Either way, the genes for that sort of rugged masculine independence are not long for this planet.

A man whose wife dies is ten times more likely to commit suicide after the loss than is a woman whose husband dies. Regardless of how independent he appears or how independent he imagines himself to be, the average man is profoundly dependent upon his relationship with his wife.

Richard Driscoll, Ph.D., is the author of The Stronger Sex (Prima Publishing, 1998).  His column is adapted from sections of the book.  You may contact him at This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it