In evolutionary terms an instinct for violence against others helped early men improve their status and gain more access to mates, but in modern terms this can translate into large-scale wars. In contrast women are naturally equipped with a “tend and befriend” attitude which means they seek to resolve conflicts peacefully in order to protect their children, researchers said.
The study, published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, is a review of evolutionary evidence for the so-called “male warrior hypothesis”.It claims that in every culture throughout history, men have been more likely than women to use violence when confronted by people they saw as outsiders.
Although men’s hostile responses most likely evolved to combat the threat from outsiders, they “might not be functional in modern times and are often counterproductive,” experts said.Over time this has resulted in full-scale wars between countries and empires, and also in scraps and skirmishes between rival groups of football supporters and urban gangs.
Prof Mark van Vugt, who led the study, said: “A solution to conflict, which is an all too common problem in societies today, remains elusive. One reason for this might be the difficulty we have in changing our mindset, which has evolved over thousands of years.”Our review of the academic literature suggests that the human mind is shaped in a way that tends to perpetuate conflict with ‘outsiders’.”
Prof van Vugt said the research established that conflict with other groups of men presented our ancestors with opportunities to improve their status and gain more access to territory and potential mates. He added: “We see similar behaviour in chimpanzees. For example, the males continuously monitor the borders of their territory.”If a female from another group comes along, she may be persuaded to emigrate to his group. When a male strays too far, however, he is likely to be brutally beaten and possibly killed.”
–From Male sex drive ‘to blame for world’s conflicts’ published in the Telegraph of London
image LOUAI BESHARA/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
About Tom Matlack
I found the rest of the rest of that article from the Telegraph intriguing too; hostility as a genetic trait passed down from history, and Genghis Khan with 16 million direct male descendants!:
Research by Californian scientists in 2008 showed that the evolution of aggression and bravery in men was down to competition for mates and territory.
Their study showed that our genes can have a significant impact on traits like belligerence, meaning that in the course of our history the most aggressive group was singled out by natural selection.
Hunter-gatherer communities engaged in frequent skirmishes with other, neighbouring groups, taking land, goods and women as a reward for victory.
This meant belligerence was rewarded with reproductive success, and the benefits of the trait were genetically passed down to future generations, while those lacking aggression were filtered out.
There are several historical examples linking the male sex drive and conflict, such as Mongolian warlord Genghis Khan who studies suggest has 16 million direct male descendants today as a result of his appetite for women.
Vikings also left a strong genetic fingerprint in areas like the Scottish Western Isles, the Isle of Skye and Iceland because raiding parties would take local wives as a reward for successful raids.
I don’t know. I get pretty belligerent when I don’t have my coffee in the morning.
As a woman who writes humorous books about men (The Mancode: Exposed my latest release), I do believe ego and testosterone are part of the issues in conflict. If women ran the world, would there be as many wars?
Maybe only 3-5 days/month.
“If women ran the world, would there be as many wars? ”
If women ran the world, meaning they actually reached the top of the pile. They’d be as prone to be Margaret Thatcher than Mother Theresa. Though Thatcher would probably get elected faster even if she has more opposition to her politics.
Because who gets at the top is determined by shitty stepping on everyone else’s toes. Not exactly going to improve the empathy of leaders, is it?
I agree. That’s the point. Women today are not powerless. What does “run the world” actually mean, anyway?
If women don’t run the world, they certainly run parts of the world. They have some power. It would be pretty misogynist for me to say that women have no political power. How many women voters vote for pacifists? How many female members of Congress refuse to authorize military force? Some, but not the majority.
Unless we’re saying that, for the past millennia, women have never had any power over anything at all, and suffrage movements and all the waves of feminism have achieved nothing whatsoever, that women are strictly powerless in the world. That seems like a very odd conclusion.
“Because who gets at the top is determined by shitty stepping on everyone else’s toes. Not exactly going to improve the empathy of leaders, is it?”>/i>
Well – I have to say that in many areas the best leaders have done on toe stomping – they have gotten to the top because they actually respect people’s toes!
As for empathy as a leadership trait – that does depend on the value of empathy in relation to the decision being made. Empathy has it’s value, but there are circumstances where it can get in the way and even cause danger. In many leadership positions Excessive Empathy or Tendency to make decisions based upon Empathy are poor traits and selected out.
Well – I have to say that in many areas the best leaders have done on toe stomping – they have gotten to the top because they actually respect people’s toes!
Do they actually respect those toes or do they realize that they can’t afford to piss them off and keep their power?
Danny – good leasers don’t need to pee anyone off – so they can respect not just toes but the whole person!
Question’s been answered already. Women in power are even worse than men. Neither do you see a big gap in other measures of violence or support for violence in eg wars.
I’m willing to believe that genetic traits and male hormones are ONE factor in explaining why humans fight. This seems perfectly plausible to me. But, this completely ignores several things, including the role that women play in warfare.
It’s not just men who go to war. SOCIETIES go to war, and societies include women. Even if there is gender segregation that keeps women out of military organizations, women are often still part of the larger war effort. In the Civil War, women wrote to their husbands, boyfriends, and brothers telling them to “kill a Yankee for me” or “kill a reb for me.” The women who were the basis for Rosie the Riveter brought home nice paychecks building weapons that were used to kill men, women, and children. And, in the present day, I’m not sure where we are to fit all the women serving overseas in harm’s way. What does this theory say about them? They’re really just men in women’s bodies?
The Israeli Army certainly doesn’t think of women as unwarlike or warfare as a strictly male activity.
It’s a perfectly valid argument to say that war is something that men are more responsible for than women. I don’t have a problem with that argument. But, it’s not just a male thing.
This sounds like another example of selective gender responsibility – women just as responsible as men are for all the achievements of human progress, all wonderful things, everything good and virtuous, but when it comes to bad things like war, that’s just men. If women hold up half the sky, then women are also responsible for some of the bad things, too.
This probably explains the role of war in less hierarchical societies. But, the fact is that in the modern world the people who declare war are seldom the ones who actually fight the war. What motivates the high level decision makers and what motivates the boots on the ground may be completely different things. Shocking, I know, to think that political leaders may have a different agenda than the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, but it happens….
Are you serious in posting this, Tom? Trying to get back into the fems good books?
What comes from professors ought to go to the sewage treatment plant without bothering the rest of us.
There was an Israeli academic who wrote a paper about the IDF dehumanizing Palestinian women by not raping them. Amanda Marcotte was not available for comment.
The male sex drive is responsible for war. Yeah. Okay. Next question.
“The male sex drive is responsible for war. Yeah. Okay. Next question.”
Ever heard of mass rape as a weapon of war?
Yeah, I have. Next question?
Do you have a point?
Of course, Sex At Dawn completely refutes this whole argument. It’s simply not true.
Aggression and patriarchal values of dominance, control, and power-over-life are learned/taught, not biological.
Taught how?
Not very bright for researches. Feminist influenced blinders I expect.
Although it seem that other more traditional conservatives also love this stuff.
Apparently researches think the first quote offers evidence for the second.
Other people who never use violence directly? The rich and powerful. Like women they get someone else to do their violence for them. Is that really that hard a point to comprehend? Obama for example (or any president) is among the most violent human beings to have ever lived but he doesn’t have to lay a finger on anyone personally.
What a completely absurd line of “research”.
Morgaine,
Given various of my youthful experiences, I disagree. Some teaching, yes. Sometimes it just flows up from inside and you really, really want to…. The teaching I received as a kid was primarily, 1, how to control it, and, related, 2, how to tell when to use it. “it” being already on hand, without teaching.
I agree Richard – every living thing, from a simple celled organisms to flowers, to insects and to comedians – possess and sometimes use aggression to varying degrees. What is taught and learned is the mastering of the will and intent to control it, and use wisely. Social interactions and learning helps not hinders. This cart before the horse is so deeply ingrained that it even sounds good to those that disagree – a difference of: learn to control or learn not to learn it. The latter sounds less beastly and more dignified for us to believe-in.
Tom: “In evolutionary terms an instinct for violence against others helped early men improve their status and gain more access to mates, but in modern terms this can translate into large-scale wars. In contrast women are naturally equipped with a “tend and befriend” attitude which means they seek to resolve conflicts peacefully in order to protect their children, researchers said.”
Tom, what possessed you to base an article on this garbage?
Seriously, this is the most triggering thing I’ve read in all my time I’ve spent here.
Women are naturally equipped to tend and befriend? ALL women, Tom? Really?
Do you actually believe this tripe? I sure as hell don’t. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have written articles here.
Ah this stuff gets on my grill so much.
It is very simple, really. Inheritance+environment=behaviour. If you have no way to control for environment, there is no epistemologically legitimate way of inferring natural behavior. None. Not one. Just isn’t. Sorry, if you think there is, you have been lied to.
This may change when our understanding of how biological systems function. However, we are not at this point yet.
Some helpful articles illustrating how often we get fooled by this sort of anal leakage. – http://io9.com/5651462/brain-scams-the-real-science-behind-sex-differences
http://www.cordeliafine.com/Fine_Response_Psychologist_December_2010.pdf
http://inside.bard.edu/~luka/documents/ResearchPartArt1.pdf
Sex at Dawn is also a must read for anyone who wants to argue these sort of ideas, as is almost all the work of Stephen Gould, the biologist.
Again, really wish there was an edit function here. *when=with
”The study, published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, is a review of evolutionary evidence for the so-called “male warrior hypothesis”.It claims that in every culture throughout history, men have been more likely than women to use violence when confronted by people they saw as outsiders.”
well about that…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenobia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_B%C3%A1thory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I_of_England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_the_Great
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agustina_de_Arag%C3%B3n
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alma_Bridwell_White
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biljana_Plav%C5%A1i%C4%87
In all colours from the top of the head just a sample of cases…as you can see most of these ladies tend to have a non testosterone affected clear view of ”us” and ”them” that ended giving to the same results as it goes with the testosterone filled men…
Testosterone is related to thickening of vocal chords, growing of body hair and increasing of musculature, increasing of bone density and obviously sexual development…territoriality? That is a tad more complex to explain and it is in both, men and women.
People compete for resources, survival. Vikings raped the women of the conquered lands, yes, the muslims slaved them, yes, but the americans for instance shot them in the face same as they did with their men and children. Others gassed them with their families so…I honestly fail to see a link between war and sexuality to be honest.
Societies thorough history had very very very different approaches to the cultures, even the same culture can have different approaches to two different cultures. The spaniards mixed with native americans in mexico -both sexes- while they just burned german women alive in the netherlands, so evidence makes me believe things might be a tad more complex.
“men have been more likely than women to use violence when confronted by people they saw as outsiders.”
They’ve also been more likely than women to defend society from barbarian hordes with axes. Men throughout history have been expected to take their place on the front lines.
I fail to see how this means they are more violent than women, any more than women traditionally being responsible for cooking has made them naturally suited to the kitchen.