Can Women Survive without Men?

[Darrell Hougen]

There was an interesting article recently by a woman who attempted to start an all female production company. That was her utopian dream. Unfortunately for her, it turned into a nightmare. In my view her failure stands as an object lesson.

One should not, of course, jump to conclusions based on a single example. Perhaps the women that worked at the author's company were unusual in some way. Perhaps they were mostly young and immature, though their ages are not given in the article. However, it seems to me that it highlights a feature of the female personality that is often ignored. Women are generally not as cooperative as men. That simple fact has far reaching consequences.

One of the features of the left that often attracts women is its calls for more cooperation. In fact, it is a staple of the left to claim (or hope) that a society can be built in which competition is eliminated and people are made to act in purely cooperative ways. So, winners and losers are eliminated from childhood games, at least those led by adults. It is often suggested that grades and grading be eliminated from schools and colleges. In fact, the whole communist/socialist package is based on the utopian notion that competition can and should be eliminated. How ironic it is then, the women seem to be so incapable of cooperating toward a common end.

Women are often compared to cats while men are compared to dogs. What are the differences between cats and dogs? Generally, cats go their own way and do their own thing. Dogs (or wolves) cooperate to hunt and are known for their loyalty. Ok, female lions also cooperate so the analogy is not perfect. Still, everyone knows the impossibility of "herding cats."

Perhaps it is the fact that women are so constantly in competition with each other that causes them to crave more cooperation. However, if the article is any indication, women need men for more than mere companionship. They need men for their very survival. The women in the article, if left to their own devices, would undoubtedly starve to death in the span of a few years. This is not to say anything about anyone's individual talents or abilities. Women tend to be more talented than men in some respects and less in others. But, survival for a single, lone individual is difficult. It is the capacity for large scale cooperation that makes society and civilization possible.

One might argue that these characteristics are not features of all women. There certainly have been remarkable women. Ayn Rand comes to mind. However, Rand's life is not necessarily a rebuke to my argument. Indeed, even she fits the mold. She achieved success largely on her own. She was a loner in many respects. Her most loyal students, followers, and defenders were men.

Of course, there have also been famous heads of state that were women: Queen Elizabeth, Catherine the Great, Margaret Thatcher. But again, such women were surrounded by loyal supporters and those supporters were mostly men. It is impossible to know whether they could have achieved greatness without a cooperative base of men. In short, if the world were devoid of men --- if women were somehow able to reproduce without men --- would the sisterhood be able to survive? If the article is any indication, the answer is a resounding, "No!"

Darrell

[Wolf DeVoon]

"Men are expendable; women and children are not. A tribe or a nation can lose a high percentage of its men and still pick up the pieces and go on, as long as the women and children are saved. But if you fail to save the women and children, you've had it, you're done, you're through! You join Tyrannosaurus Rex, one more breed that bilged its final test." [Robert A. Heinlein, address at the U.S. Naval Academy, April 5, 1973]

[Marcus]

Another story from the same source:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040137/Bear-Grylls-new-fakery-row-producers-admit-spicing-TV-Island-extra-pigs-iguanas-crocs-water-coconuts-trees.html

They separated men and women on two separate islands where they had to survive (and cooperate) for 6 weeks. The women did'nt do so well. The men built shelters, beds, hunting parties, fishing lines and had a surplus of food. About half of the women were taken off the island and came near starvation on several occasions. Still they made it but they had help. A revealing quote:

On the women's island: 'a muddy pool was dug out and lined to provide a stable fresh-water source'.

Can they survive? Yes, maybe barely and not to the same degree. Many would perish. Men are more psychologically (and physically) adapted to the rigors of survival. That is fact. The very definition of masculinity is "strength". Men throughout history were responsible for the vast majority of productive, scientific and engineering advancements and this continues to be true.

It also, from an evolutionary perspective, might be the reason for the phenomenon we call "love". A woman forming an emotional bond to a strong, capable man might increase her chances of survival.

[Wolf DeVoon]

"Women represent $20 trillion in annual consumer spending, and that figure is expected to grow to $28 trillion in the next five years. According to a new report from email marketing solutions provider SimpleRelevance, women make or influence 85% of all purchase decisions." [Chain Store Age]

"Three years ago, an NBCUniversal poll showed that women purchase 60 percent of all new cars, 53 percent of all used cars, and have some influence on 85 percent of all auto purchases... data show that women spend $300 billion on vehicles annually, and outnumber men in terms of having driver’s licenses." [Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers]

The 2008 IIHS gender report found that more men die every year in car accidents than women. While on the surface there could be a number of reasons for this, the report also proved that men typically engage in much riskier driving practices, such as:

• Not using seat belts

• Driving under the influence

• Driving above posted speed limits

A study of car accidents showed that when male drivers have car accidents, the results are often much more severe than when women are behind the wheel. In fact, the 2008 data show a number of frightening statistics for male drivers, including:

• 71 percent of all motor vehicle deaths were males

• 70 percent of pedestrian deaths were caused by male drivers

• 87 percent of bicyclist deaths involved male drivers and

• 91 percent percent of motorcycle deaths

[u.S. News & World Report]

Women make better leaders than men, according to research conducted by Zenger Folkman. “They build better teams; they’re more liked and respected as managers; they tend to be able to combine intuitive and logical thinking more seamlessly; they’re more aware of the implications of their own and others’ actions; and they think more accurately about the resources needed to accomplish a given outcome,” said Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman in Forbes.

Two research reports find that women deliver better company performance.

• Venture-backed companies that include females as senior executives are more likely to succeed than companies with only men in charge, according to Women at the Wheel: Do Female Executives Drive Start-Up Success? a report by Dow Jones VentureSource.

• VC firms that invest in women-led businesses performed better than all men-led businesses, according to the SBA Office of Advocacy.

Two research reports find that women are better money managers.

• Women-led private technology companies are more capital-efficient, achieving 35% higher return on investment, and, when venture-backed, bringing in 12% higher revenue than male-owned tech companies, according to Women in Technology: Evolving, Ready to Save the World, research conducted by the Kauffman Foundation.

• The high-tech companies women build are more capital-efficient than the norm. The average venture-backed company run by a woman had achieved comparable early-year revenues, using an average of one-third less committed capital, according to research conducted by Illuminate Ventures.

[Marcus]

Wolf deVoon what do all those statistics have in common? They display the masculine propensity towards risk taking and the feminine propensity to consume (not produce). Basically proving my point.

The tendency to take more risks and/or place yourself in dangerous situations is not the same as raw survival ability which is using your mind to solve problems under conditions of stress, which men excel at. It was enough of an evolutionarily advantageous trait that risk taking keeps getting passed down to males despite the fact it could heighten danger.

The fact remains there are only a handful of (billion dollar +), venture backed companies run by women. The vast majority of successful companies (especially in technology) are run by men, and have always been so. The "sky is blue", and men are risk takers.

(Some women, (Ayn Rand is one of them) are more masculine psychologically and they tend to be lesbians. Like men they have a propensity to hands-on, problem-solving, rough, or technical work. They are also probably more likely to be less attractive.)

[Marcus]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2015/0529/All-8-women-fail-Ranger-School-Some-Rangers-say-standards-should-change-video

100% fail rate (but are allowed to keep taking it over and over, unlike the men):

Ranger School, which grooms the Army’s most elite special operations fighting force, opened its doors to women for the first time this year. Eight of the 20 women who originally entered the school's first co-ed class were allowed to recycle through the program after they fell out in their first go-round. The Friday announcement confirmed this happened again. Three of the eight were invited to take the course over again in late June.

3 times!

[Wolf DeVoon]

That's right, men are good cannon-fodder, superior killers. Girls are just brainless consumers.

Women in history of science:

• Marie Curie, two Nobel prizes
• Emilie du Chatelet, French translation of Isaac Newton’s Principia
• Caroline Herschel, increased the number of known star clusters from 100 to 2,500
• Mary Anning, found ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, pterodactyl and hundreds of other fossils
• Mary Somerville, series of writings on astronomy, chemistry, physics and mathematics
• Ada Lovelace, world's first computer algorithm and description of a computer
• Maria Mitchell, astronomer, first woman elected to American Academy of Arts and Sciences
• Lise Meitner, calculated energy released and named the reaction 'nuclear fission'
• Irène Curie-Joliot, alpha rays, isotopes of nitrogen, phosphorus, silicon and aluminum
• Barbara McClintock, Nobel prize for “jumping genes” in microorganisms, insects and humans
• Dorothy Crowfoot, X-ray crystallography, structures of penicillin, vitamin B12 and insulin
• Rosalind Franklin, X-ray images of DNA double helix shown to Watson and Crick

Women working in science today:

• Ruzena Bajcsy Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, UC Berkeley
• Jacqueline K. Barton Professor of Chemistry, CalTech
• Anna K. Behrensmeyer Research Paleobiologist, Smithsonian Institution
• Elizabeth Blackburn Professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics, UC San Francisco
• Sarah Boysen Professor of Psychology, Ohio State
• Rita Colwell Director, National Science Foundation
• Margaret Conkey Director, Archaeological Research, UC Berkeley
• Esther Conwell Professor of Chemistry, University of Rochester
• Gretchen Daily Research Professor, Stanford
• Ingrid Daubechies Professor of Mathematics and Computational Mathematics, Princeton
• Persis Drell Director of Research, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
• Mildred S. Dresselhaus Professor of Physics and Electrical Engineering, MIT
• Sylvia Earle Explorer in Residence, National Geographic Society
• Sandra Faber Professor, Lick Observatories, UC Santa Cruz
• Melissa Franklin Professor of Physics, Harvard
• Patricia S. Goldman-Rakic Professor of Neurobiology, Neurology, and Psychiatry, Yale
• Elizabeth Gould Professor of Psychology, Princeton
• Beatrice H. Hahn Professor of Medicine and Microbiology, University of Alabama
• Heidi Hammel Senior Research Scientist, Space Science Institute, Boulder
• Lene Vestergaard Hau Professor of Applied Physics, Harvard
• Darleane C. Hoffman Professor of the Graduate School, UC Berkeley
• Kathleen Howell Professor of Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering, Purdue
• Sarah Blaffer Hrdy Professor Emeritus of Anthropology, UC Davis
• Shirley Ann Jackson President, Rensselaer Polytechnic
• Deborah Jin Physicist, National Institute of Standards and Technology
• Mary-Claire King Professor of Medicine and Genetics, University of Washington
• Susan Lindquist Director, Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research at MIT
• Barbara Liskov Professor of Engineering, MIT
• Margaret A. Liu Vice Chairman, Transgene, Strasbourg
• Jane Lubchenco Professor of Marine Biology and Zoology, Oregon State
• Shannon W. Lucid Chief Scientist, NASA
• Lynn Margulis Distinguished Professor, University of Massachusetts at Amherst
• Polly Matzinger Head, T-Cell Tolerance and Memory Section, National Institutes of Health
• Marcia McNutt President and CEO, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
• Cherry Murray Senior Vice President, Bell Labs' Lucent Technologies
• Adriana C. Ocampo Uria Planetary Scientist, European Space Agency
• Mercedes Pascual Assistant Professor Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan
• Maureen Raymo Research Associate Professor, Boston University
• Janet Rowley Professor of Medicine, Hematology and Oncology, University of Chicago
• Vera Rubin Senior Fellow, Carnegie Institution of Washington
• Geraldine Seydoux Associate Professor of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Johns Hopkins
• Maxine Singer President, Carnegie Institution of Washington
• Susan Solomon Senior Scientist, NOAA
• Jill Tarter Director, Center for SETI Research
• Shirley Tilghman President, Princeton
• Patty Jo Watson Professor of Anthropology, Washington University
• Sheila Widnall Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics, MIT
• Terrie Williams Professor of Biology, UC Santa Cruz
• Flossie Wong-Staal Chief Scientist, Immusol
• Maria Zuber Professor of Geophysics and Planetary Science, MIT

[Wolf DeVoon]

Good joke, Ayn Rand was a lesbian (according to Marcus).

[Darrell Hougen]

Wolf,

Just to be clear, I'm not saying anything about the abilities of individuals though men are clearly stronger on average among other things. I'm talking about the ability of the two sexes to cooperate.

As to your list of scientists, only Marie Curie and Ada Lovelace stand out. I'll add another to the list: Margaret Hamilton was an early programmer and her team was responsible for writing the Apollo mission guidance software. But, that doesn't alter my basic point.

There have been numerous successful companies that were primarily or exclusively staffed by men. Most armies have been exclusively run by men. Nation states have been primarily governed by men.

Part of the success of men is clearly a result of the fact that men are bigger, stronger, and faster than women on average, but my point is that a huge part of their success is in their greater ability and willingness to cooperate. Women are able to fit into and even take charge of an organization that is staffed with a sufficient percentage of men, but most women seem incapable of putting aside their competitive nature long enough to make an organization successful on their own.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

They separated men and women on two separate islands where they had to survive (and cooperate) for 6 weeks. The women did'nt do so well. The men built shelters, beds, hunting parties, fishing lines and had a surplus of food. About half of the women were taken off the island and came near starvation on several occasions. Still they made it but they had help.

Thanks. I had heard that story second hand, but it was one of the reasons I was confident I wasn't generalizing on the basis of a single story.

Darrell

[Wolf DeVoon]

[Wolf DeVoon]

a huge part of [male] success is in their greater ability and willingness to cooperate... most women seem incapable of putting aside their competitive nature long enough to make an organization successful on their own.

Sorry, sir, you have that exactly backwards. Men are competitive and hierarchical (top dog).

https://books.google.com/books?id=vZ-JFWyKMzgC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=male+aggression+top+dog+competition&source=bl&ots=iJobPpMgdV&sig=8_xA1EAzCSSCKlVaXvUuChX2gck&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBDgKahUKEwiNlOKe3InJAhXFWT4KHXQhCbI#v=onepage&q=male%20aggression%20top%20dog%20competition&f=false

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-aggressivus/201409/male-aggression

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/09/the-real-reason-why-women-are-leaving-wall-street/279379/

[Brant Gaede]

In a world without women--

We wouldn't be having this discussion. No one would.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

In 2012, women accounted for 52 percent of all workers employed in management, professional, and related occupations, somewhat more than their share of total employment (47%)... In 2012, women accounted for more than half of all workers within several sectors: financial activities (53%), education and health services (75%)...

In October 2012, 40.5 percent of women ages 16 to 24 who were enrolled in either high school or college were in the labor force. Young men in the same age group who were enrolled in school had a lower labor force participation rate...

College graduates - Women 28,219,000
College graduates - Men 25,054,000

http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/womenlaborforce_2013.pdf

Women are paid less and work harder, but if men disappeared in droves, life would go on.

[Kyle Jacob Biodrowski]

Can Women Survive without Men?

No, they would be fucked. But, the question is, who would be doing the fucking?

[moralist]

Marcus writes:

A woman forming an emotional bond to a strong, capable man might increase her chances of survival.

As America becomes more feminized, there are fewer strong capable men and more weak spineless liberal males.

This causes females to form an emotional bond to the government to increase their chances of survival. So the ever growing State becomes their default husband and provider as well as father to their illegitimate spawn.

Just in case anyone doesn't know the difference between a man and a male...

MAN

MALE

[Brant Gaede]

I do see the difference between a man and a horse.

--Neigh

[Brant Gaede]

I like your woman/state connection.

After welfare the next step is delivering the children to state nurseries for the rest of the raising while mom goes home to make more babies after they strap her down to a table and shoot the appropriate sperm up her vagina from approved male sources.

After birth all babies will be immediately examined and the undesirable ones used for body parts or research or merely tossed off a cliff. Some of those may be raised to different levels of maturity before being used in various ways, including sexual, even to physical adulthood. If they reach that maturity their organs will be harvested and shipped mostly to China for transplants. To keep the organs fresh the whole live person may be shipped to approved slaughter houses all over the world. The left over flesh will be considered a delicacy at first and a necessity later on. The elite will end up eating very young children as today we desire and eat lamb. Of course, all they'll see are the cuts of meat.

--Hannibal

logical progression

[dldelancey]

Women are generally not as cooperative as men.

A few sources supporting the conclusion that women may actually be better collaborators (i.e. more cooperative) than men.

Testosterone disrupts human collaboration by increasing egocentric choices

The role of gender in team collaboration and performance

Collaboration and gender

There's another study I'm aware of but can't find the source again just yet. It's a University of Chicago study re: bills introduced to the US House of Representatives and shows that women work with a much broader range of co-sponsors than their male counterparts.

"Women are generally not as cooperative as men" is a refutable generalization and not very strong of a thesis on which to base the argument posed in the original post. A stronger thesis might be that diversity on teams generally produces better results than non-diversity on teams.

[dldelancey]

Wolf,

Just to be clear, I'm not saying anything about the abilities of individuals though men are clearly stronger on average among other things. I'm talking about the ability of the two sexes to cooperate.

As to your list of scientists, only Marie Curie and Ada Lovelace stand out. I'll add another to the list: Margaret Hamilton was an early programmer and her team was responsible for writing the Apollo mission guidance software. But, that doesn't alter my basic point.

There have been numerous successful companies that were primarily or exclusively staffed by men. Most armies have been exclusively run by men. Nation states have been primarily governed by men.

Part of the success of men is clearly a result of the fact that men are bigger, stronger, and faster than women on average, but my point is that a huge part of their success is in their greater ability and willingness to cooperate. Women are able to fit into and even take charge of an organization that is staffed with a sufficient percentage of men, but most women seem incapable of putting aside their competitive nature long enough to make an organization successful on their own.

Darrell

Do you have evidence to show that the same "numerous and successful companies that were primarily or exclusively staffed by men" wouldn't also have been successful if they had been primarily or exclusively staffed by women? Or evidence that shows that these companies wouldn't have been MORE successful if they had included women?

The success of armies has nothing to do with cooperation. Successful armies follow a strict chain of command. (Am I the only one with a mental image of Jack Nicholson right now? Hell, yes, I ordered the code red! haha)

Yes, nation states are primarily governed by men. They've fought a lot of wars, too, and committed a lot of genocide under that leadership. I don't know that women will do any better, but I do know that this is not a very strong argument with which to prove your point.

Perhaps it would be a good time to define exactly what you mean by "cooperation."

[moralist]

Brant writes:

After welfare the next step is delivering the children to state nurseries for the rest of the raising while mom goes home to make more babies after they strap her down to a table and shoot the appropriate sperm up her vagina from approved male sources.

A typical urban liberal female works as a bureaucratic government public union employee, frequently in education or welfare departments. This is what the union of the liberal female and the State produces...

...the feminized liberal male.

It's cultural suicide, so the real question is:

Can America survive without men?

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Women are generally not as cooperative as men.

A few sources supporting the conclusion that women may actually be better collaborators (i.e. more cooperative) than men.

Testosterone disrupts human collaboration by increasing egocentric choices

The role of gender in team collaboration and performance

Collaboration and gender

There's another study I'm aware of but can't find the source again just yet. It's a University of Chicago study re: bills introduced to the US House of Representatives and shows that women work with a much broader range of co-sponsors than their male counterparts.

"Women are generally not as cooperative as men" is a refutable generalization and not very strong of a thesis on which to base the argument posed in the original post. A stronger thesis might be that diversity on teams generally produces better results than non-diversity on teams.

My guess is women cooperate with women as well as men cooperate with men for common interests with a lot of mix and match. Hunt and fight or raise the tyke. That's the natural, basic biological division of labor. The wealthier the society the more options are possible along with their complexities.

--Brant

[moralist]

My guess is women cooperate with women as well as men cooperate with men for common interests with a lot of mix and match.

That's a good guess.

This pissing match of who's better, women or men is just plain stupid.

In reality, both men and women become better people when they're together. That is what makes them men and women, and not just males and females who remain worthless parasites leeching off of the State. For just as the government is the liberal female's husband and father to her spawn... government is also the liberal male's Mommie.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Woman smarter

Yes I say

Smarter than man

In every way!

[dldelancey]

There was an interesting article recently by a woman who attempted to start an all female production company. That was her utopian dream. Unfortunately for her, it turned into a nightmare. In my view her failure stands as an object lesson.

One should not, of course, jump to conclusions based on a single example. Perhaps the women that worked at the author's company were unusual in some way. Perhaps they were mostly young and immature, though their ages are not given in the article. However, it seems to me that it highlights a feature of the female personality that is often ignored. Women are generally not as cooperative as men. That simple fact has far reaching consequences.

One of the features of the left that often attracts women is its calls for more cooperation. In fact, it is a staple of the left to claim (or hope) that a society can be built in which competition is eliminated and people are made to act in purely cooperative ways. So, winners and losers are eliminated from childhood games, at least those led by adults. It is often suggested that grades and grading be eliminated from schools and colleges. In fact, the whole communist/socialist package is based on the utopian notion that competition can and should be eliminated. How ironic it is then, the women seem to be so incapable of cooperating toward a common end.

Women are often compared to cats while men are compared to dogs. What are the differences between cats and dogs? Generally, cats go their own way and do their own thing. Dogs (or wolves) cooperate to hunt and are known for their loyalty. Ok, female lions also cooperate so the analogy is not perfect. Still, everyone knows the impossibility of "herding cats."

Perhaps it is the fact that women are so constantly in competition with each other that causes them to crave more cooperation. However, if the article is any indication, women need men for more than mere companionship. They need men for their very survival. The women in the article, if left to their own devices, would undoubtedly starve to death in the span of a few years. This is not to say anything about anyone's individual talents or abilities. Women tend to be more talented than men in some respects and less in others. But, survival for a single, lone individual is difficult. It is the capacity for large scale cooperation that makes society and civilization possible.

One might argue that these characteristics are not features of all women. There certainly have been remarkable women. Ayn Rand comes to mind. However, Rand's life is not necessarily a rebuke to my argument. Indeed, even she fits the mold. She achieved success largely on her own. She was a loner in many respects. Her most loyal students, followers, and defenders were men.

Of course, there have also been famous heads of state that were women: Queen Elizabeth, Catherine the Great, Margaret Thatcher. But again, such women were surrounded by loyal supporters and those supporters were mostly men. It is impossible to know whether they could have achieved greatness without a cooperative base of men. In short, if the world were devoid of men --- if women were somehow able to reproduce without men --- would the sisterhood be able to survive? If the article is any indication, the answer is a resounding, "No!"

Darrell

Darrell,

You say that "[o]ne should not... jump to conclusions based on a single example." Yet that appears to be exactly what you have done. Beyond the article cited, the rest of your post is mostly opinion. Having read the article in full, I don't dispute that the first mistake the author made was her attempt at an all-female enterprise. I think in some circumstances that sort of enterprise could be very successful, but in general (as I stated in a previous post), one gets the most success from diverse teams. Further, although not all the ages were listed, we do know from the article that 2 of the 7 employees were late 20s and early 30s. This, along with the picture of the author makes it at least a safe guess that she staffed her company from a similar age cohort - again, lack of diversity. However, there is also evidence of a serious lack of leadership by the author, as well as a lack of business savvy. She admits to caving in to unrealistic salary demands from the get-go. And seriously, what kind of leader allows the antics described to go on without any disciplinary action at all?

How do these other female-led and staffed businesses in the same industry support (or not) your theory?

The Dollhouse Collective

Gloria Sanchez Productions

The Writers Lab

A Casual Romance

Pacific Standard