Vox Day over at AlphaGame has published a story from one of his readers in China. It provides a fascinating example of how male-dominated and female-dominated societies differ from one another. The reader, a teacher in China, created something of a social experiment by bringing in snacks and drinks to class and seeing what would happen under two different scenarios: the first involved the girls getting the best snacks and drinks, and the second involved the boys getting them. An excerpt:
The girls refused to share anything *except* with the two most popular boys in the class. Those two were pretty much free to travel between the desks eating as they wanted from whatever bag the girls had on their desks. The less popular boys either didn’t try or were flatly refused in a not very nice way. The best food here went to the two boys (and one in particular[Ed: the alpha male])who dominated the social scene while the remaining seven sat with their bag of lesser desirable foodstuffs.
Two days later with the same class I declared a boy’s day and broke out snacks again, approximately the same mix as before. This time however I allowed the boys to choose first and same as before, the first crew took the best things leaving the dregs for the rest. However, after everything was distributed the girls, all of them, visited and stuck near the boys with the best snacks. As the boys coming first were random, it wasn’t the two most popular that got to pick first. Overall though there was a far greater amount of mixing, the social scene was much more evenly distributed boys and girls, and moreover, everyone got to eat some of the best food. Even the gamma/delta/omega boys got female attention and begun to act a little more confident. They had something the girls *wanted* which inverted the power structure and made the girls nicer as compared to the observed harpy bitchiness encountered two days prior. There was a lot less snapping (which the girls engaged in on womens day when they had the food and a less popular boy wanted something) and what snapping existed was playful rather than malicious. Even the ugly girls got a share of the good stuff, exactly the reverse of the boys experience. I can easily state the overall happiness of the class was greater on this day then when the girls had first pick. In other words when the girls have the power – they don’t use it well and the whole class suffered. Nothing was even close to fair, and a super majority of the boys are left out doing nothing productive unless you consider sitting alone being resentful productive.
Here we can see how male and female nature will determine societal outcomes. Women will attempt to draw favor with the most desirable, highest value men (in this case, the most popular boys) through whatever means they can. In this instance, by sharing the best food. I cannot help but think that hypergamy is the principal reason for this kind of behavior. Men on the other hand will attempt to draw favor with any available woman, and although they may prioritize for the best looking women, even lower-value, less attractive women will still get something. Because men aren’t driven as much as women to seek the the best, and only the best, they are more inclined to see a more equitable distribution of resources.
Commentator JCclimber left a great comment, involving a similar situation among… you guessed it, chickens:
So, here is a similar experiment. My wife HATES it when I compare women to the dynamics I see in our backyard chicken flock, but then she turns around and uses the examples herself.
Bring out a treat when you only have a flock of hens, and they will all drop whatever they are doing to chase the new treat. They will drop their favorite food if another hen nearby has something in her mouth-if that other hen is being chased by still other hens who don’t have a treat yet.
There are plenty of treats for every hen. But they will ignore the other treats if more than one other hen shows interest in a particular treat. The screeching and chasing all around the backyard is hugely amusing.
Yet, introduce a rooster, and everything changes. If he finds a worm or other treat, instead of eating it, he calls over his hens and shares it with them. He’ll protect them from harm do the point of death. He shows them where to lay eggs. And so on.
None of the hens call him over to share their treats. However, they all submit to him when he comes near. He also doesn’t get involved in their pecking order and inner squables.
Man, don’t get me going on the pecking order….but that is extremely instructive to watch as well. Sometimes I can’t help narrating it with human sentences which cracks up my family.
The parts in bold show an example of pre-selection in action. The hens, if they see that another hen is chasing after something possessed by a third hen, must be assuming that the treat, whatever it is, must be of great value. Hence they drop whatever they are doing to get it for themselves. Human females carry on the exact same process with men. Once they see that other women are chasing after a man, then they too will want to chase after that man.
Incidentally, these two examples support Christian teaching about women in leadership positions. The natural female desire to cater to the best available men may not be malicious in nature, but it does present a danger to the well-being of the community (the woman being trained to support “Team Her Man” is not much better, because she will subconsciously favor her husband, rather than whomever is the highest-value man). And while women can be taught about this danger, they will invariable slip-up from time to time and revert to it. At which point they likely will continue that behavior, until a man calls them out on their favoritism. Given this dynamic, better to simply have men in charge and not risk it coming up in the first place.