Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T15:28:59.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Societies also prioritize female survival

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2022

April Bleske-Rechek
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI 54720, USA bleskeal@uwec.eduhttps://bleske-rechek.com
Robert O. Deaner
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI 49401-9403, USA robert.deaner@gmail.comhttp://faculty.gvsu.edu/deanerr

Abstract

We extend Benenson et al.'s hypothesis from the individual level to the societal level. Because women have highly limited reproductive rates, societies have generally prioritized female survival and regarded males as expendable. We describe various lines of evidence that are consistent with this hypothesis, and we offer additional predictions about differential attitudes toward male versus female endangerment.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

In support of the general proposal that staying alive has historically been more important for females' reproductive success than for males' (Campbell, Reference Campbell1999), Benenson et al. provide extensive evidence that females respond to a variety of threats with greater self-protectiveness than do males. We propose that the logic of Benenson et al.'s analysis extends to the societal level. In particular, because women, but not men, set the upper limit on reproduction, societies have generally prioritized female survival and protection from harm.

We suggest that societies prioritize women because groups with few men and many women produce more offspring, and ultimately achieve greater success, than groups with few women and many men (Baumeister, Reference Baumeister2010; Felson, Reference Felson2000). This idea is supported by historical and ethnographic data from both hunter gatherers and large-scale societies (Glowacki, Wilson, & Wrangham, Reference Glowacki, Wilson and Wrangham2020). A prioritization of female survival predicts the existence of individual thought and behavioral patterns, as well as group-wide norms, that promote the survival of women over men. We note that the prioritization of female survival does not imply a prioritization of female autonomy and sexual choice.

Much evidence supports the hypothesis that societies prioritize female survival. First, people's self-reported attitudes reflect more concern about preserving women's survival than men's. For example, when asked who should be saved first on a sinking ship, people are far more likely to say women than men (FeldmanHall et al., Reference FeldmanHall, Dalgleish, Evans, Navrady, Tedeschi and Mobbs2016; see also Burnstein, Crandall, & Kitayama, Reference Burnstein, Crandall and Kitayama1994). This attitude manifested on the sinking Titanic, where men prioritized the survival of women and children above their own, so much so that men traveling first class were more likely to perish than were women traveling third class (80% of men perished in all, compared to 25% of women; Browne, Reference Browne2007). This behavior has been observed on other sinking ships, and the norm is indicated by written statutes and captains' orders; in cases where men failed to prioritize women and children, they were publicly shamed (Browne, Reference Browne2007).

Warfare and military norms and attitudes prioritize female survival. Worldwide, warfare has been pursued almost exclusively by groups of men against other groups of men (Chagnon, Reference Chagnon1988; Keeley, Reference Keeley1996). Historically, women have been barred from military combat positions (in the United States, women were banned from direct ground combat military positions until 2013), and in rare cases where industrialized states have used women in combat, it has been done as a last resort (Browne, Reference Browne2007). The exclusion of women from combat reflects, at least in part, concerns about their survival: Female combat casualties cause greater societal despair than male casualties; and male soldiers reported that if women were in their combat units, they would feel more protective of them than of their male comrades (Browne, Reference Browne2007).

The workforce reveals trends consistent with a prioritization of women's survival. In the United States, men are massively over-represented in the most dangerous jobs and they represent over 90% of occupational fatalities (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020, 2022). When emergencies pose grave risks to workers (e.g., Fukushima, Chernobyl), nearly all of the rescue workers are men (ABC News, n.d.; Belyakov, Steinhäusler, & Trott, Reference Belyakov, Steinhäusler and Trott2000).

Physically dangerous sports also do not generally include women (Deaner & Smith, Reference Deaner and Smith2013). Although this may be due to both informal social norms and sex differences in risk-taking, formal policies exist: In both ice hockey and lacrosse, men but not women are permitted to initiate physical contact against (i.e., check) their opponents.

Cognitive biases in perceptions of women are also consistent with a prioritization of female survival. Males and females alike are more likely to automatically categorize a “victim” as female rather than male, to perceive the same offense as causing more harm to females than to males, and to desire harsher punishment to perpetrators who target female versus male victims (Reynolds et al., Reference Reynolds, Howard, Sjastad, Zhu, Okimoto, Baumeister and Kim2020). Relatedly, people view an act of physical aggression perpetrated against a woman as more serious than the same act of aggression perpetrated against a man (Felson, Reference Felson2000; Harris & Knight-Bohnhoff, Reference Harris and Knight-Bohnhoff1996), and offenders who commit violent crimes against women receive longer sentences than do those who commit crimes against men (Curry, Lee, & Rodriguez, Reference Curry, Lee and Rodriguez2004; Glaeser & Sacerdote, Reference Glaeser and Sacerdote2003).

The norm of (many) societies prioritizing the survival of women could reflect cultural group selection (Richerson et al., Reference Richerson, Baldini, Bell, Demps, Frost, Hillis and Zefferman2016; Turchin, Currie, Turner, & Gavrilets, Reference Turchin, Currie, Turner and Gavrilets2013). However, it could also reflect men protecting unrelated women and children (“chivalry”) in order to signal their genetic quality, parenting ability, and general pro-sociality; this hypothesis is consistent with data from nonhuman primates (van Schaik, Bshary, Wagner, & Cunha, Reference van Schaik, Bshary, Wagner and Cunha2022).

One strength of the hypothesis that societies prioritize female survival is that developmental mechanisms that operate at the societal level may partly explain greater female self-protectiveness at the individual level. For example, as summarized by Benenson et al., girls and women generally experience greater fear than their male counterparts; this difference likely has several causes, but one may be societal messages that promote male, but not female, bravery, pain tolerance, and risk taking, particularly if there is an audience. These messages may be transmitted by family members, other adults, and social narratives.

The hypothesis that women's survival is prioritized generates additional predictions about attitudes toward males and females, including the following: (1) people should be more concerned about women serving in direct combat positions than about women serving in military command positions; (2) parents should be less supportive of daughters' than sons' participation in dangerous sports such as mixed martial arts and cliff-jumping; (3) men and women should be less inclined to encourage females than males to consider high-risk occupations, such as law enforcement and truck driving; and (4) the degree to which people harbor negative feelings about female participation in direct ground combat military roles and high-risk sports and occupations should be mediated by their perceptions of how physically dangerous those choices are as opposed to their perceptions of how stereotypically male-oriented or unpopular those activities are.

Financial support

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

ABC News (n.d.). Japan's Fukushima 50: Heroes who volunteered to stay behind at Japan's crippled nuclear plants. Retrieved January 23, 2022, from https://abcnews.go.com/International/fukushima-50-line-defense-japanese-nuclear-complex/story?id=13147746Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F. (2010). Is there anything good about men?: How cultures flourish by exploiting men. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Belyakov, O. V., Steinhäusler, F., & Trott, K.-R. (2000). Chernobyl liquidators. The people and the doses. Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of the International Radiation Protection Association, Hiroshima, Japan, May 14–19, 2000. https://www.irpa.net/irpa10/cdrom/00666.pdfGoogle Scholar
Browne, K. (2007). Co-ed combat: The new evidence that women shouldn't fight the nation's wars. Sentinel.Google Scholar
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020). National census of fatal occupational injuries in 2019. December 16. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/cfoi_12162020.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2022). Labor force statistics from the current population survey. Table 18: Employed persons by detailed industry, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Accessed January 20, 2022: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18.htmGoogle Scholar
Burnstein, E., Crandall, C., & Kitayama, S. (1994). Some neo-Darwinian decision rules for altruism: Weighing cues for inclusive fitness as a function of the biological importance of the decision. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 773789. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.5.773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A. (1999). Staying alive: Evolution, culture, and women's intrasexual aggression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(2), 203214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chagnon, N. A. (1988). Life histories, blood revenge, and warfare in a tribal population. Science, 239(4843), 985992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.239.4843.985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curry, T. R.., Lee, G., & Rodriguez, S. F. (2004). Does victim gender increase sentence severity? Further explorations of gender dynamics and sentencing outcomes. Crime & Delinquency, 50(3), 319343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128703256265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deaner, R. O., & Smith, B. A. (2013). Sex differences in sports across 50 societies. Cross-Cultural Research, 47(3), 268309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397112463687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FeldmanHall, O., Dalgleish, T., Evans, D., Navrady, L., Tedeschi, E., & Mobbs, D. (2016). Moral chivalry: Gender and harm sensitivity predict costly altruism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(6), 542551. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616647448CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Felson, R. B. (2000). The normative protection of women from violence. Sociological Forum, 15(1), 91116. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007598204631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaeser, E. L., & Sacerdote, B. (2003). Sentencing in homicide cases and the role of vengeance. Journal of Legal Studies, 32(2), 363392. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/374707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glowacki, L., Wilson, M. L., & Wrangham, R. W. (2020). The evolutionary anthropology of war. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 178, 963982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.09.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, M. B., & Knight-Bohnhoff, K. (1996). Gender and aggression I: Perceptions of aggression. Sex Roles, 35(1/2), 126. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01548172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, L. H. (1996). War before civilization. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reynolds, T., Howard, C., Sjastad, H., Zhu, L., Okimoto, T. G., Baumeister, R. F., … Kim, J. (2020). Man up and take it: Gender bias in moral typecasting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 161, 120141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.05.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richerson, P., Baldini, R., Bell, A. V., Demps, K., Frost, K., Hillis, V., … Zefferman, M. (2016). Cultural group selection plays an essential role in explaining human cooperation: A sketch of the evidence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1400106XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turchin, P., Currie, T. E., Turner, E. A. L., & Gavrilets, S. (2013). War, space, and the evolution of Old World complex societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(41), 1638416389. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1308825110CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Schaik, C. P., Bshary, R., Wagner, G., & Cunha, F. (2022). Male anti-predation services in primates as costly signaling? A comparative analysis and review. Ethology, 128(1), 114. https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.13233CrossRefGoogle Scholar