This sounds very similar to Baumeister's idea. See the Earning Manhood section in his essay. Excerpt below.
So perhaps Baumeister's essay wouldn't be a revelation to some feminists. But is Baumeister wrong? Perhaps I am missing the difference. The main difference seems to be the feminist take is more normative.
" The phrase “Be a man” is not as common as it once was, but there is still some sense that manhood must be earned. Every adult female is a woman and is entitled to respect as such, but many cultures withhold respect from the males until and unless the lads prove themselves. This is of course tremendously useful for the culture, because it can set the terms by which males earn respect as men, and in that way it can motivate the men to do things that the culture finds productive.
Some sociological writings about the male role have emphasized that to be a man, you have to produce more than you consume. That is, men are expected, first, to provide for themselves: If somebody else provides for you, you’re less than a man. Second, the man should create some additional wealth or surplus value so that it can provide for others in addition to himself. These can be his wife and children, or others who depend on him, or his subordinates, or even perhaps just paying taxes that the government can use. Regardless, you’re not a man unless you produce at that level.
Again, I’m not saying men have it worse than women. There are plenty of problems and disadvantages that cultures put on women. My point is just that cultures find men useful in these very specific ways. Requiring the man to earn respect by producing wealth and value that can support himself and others is one of these. Women do not face this particular challenge or requirement."
If you'll note, I didn't trash on his work, I think it has a lot of value. My problem was his characterization of feminism as not having talked about these things and therefore implying they are a bunch of boobs. [edit] What is the cause of this system? What ideology is sustaining it? Is it on the whole good or bad? Normative description is not enough for many feminists, who have identified it as a problem and want to change it. It may be enough for him for his work, so that's a pretty significant difference.
The cause is biology, he explains it in the speech/book. It's actually pretty simple to understand - men are expendable because sperm is cheap. Wombs are a limited resource, sperm isn't. (In a nutshell).
I think feminism having a theory doesn't amount to much in itself. Religion also has a theory that "explains" the world. But it isn't science. Neither is feminism (in most cases).
I'm also amused because of course it is in the women's power to change men's behavior - simply change who they mate with. If they prefer mating with the most powerful men, men will compete to be the most powerful men. It's not the patriarchy creating that, it's women's choices. (Although it's possible that women's choices make biological sense, but I've never seen a feminist who cared much for evolution theory).
Another interesting thought which I think is from Nassim Taleb: religions did a lot for peace by mandating monogamy and making sure more men got access to a womb that way.
Got it. My bad. I improperly combined your comment with the criticisms of Baumeister I read that disagreed with him but didn't say why. Sorry about that.
By the way, I meant normative means they want to change it, whereas positivist would be merely describing a system. Baumeister seems more positivist.
I definitely agree that Baumeister didn't engage with feminist talk on this issue. I think he was responding to public discourses on issues like wage gaps, which don't necessarily correspond to more nuanced feminist narratives.
I wasn't clear enough separating his useful work from his feelings on feminism, and my initial post was vitriolic toward him. I can do better next time.
So perhaps Baumeister's essay wouldn't be a revelation to some feminists. But is Baumeister wrong? Perhaps I am missing the difference. The main difference seems to be the feminist take is more normative.
--------
http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm
" The phrase “Be a man” is not as common as it once was, but there is still some sense that manhood must be earned. Every adult female is a woman and is entitled to respect as such, but many cultures withhold respect from the males until and unless the lads prove themselves. This is of course tremendously useful for the culture, because it can set the terms by which males earn respect as men, and in that way it can motivate the men to do things that the culture finds productive.
Some sociological writings about the male role have emphasized that to be a man, you have to produce more than you consume. That is, men are expected, first, to provide for themselves: If somebody else provides for you, you’re less than a man. Second, the man should create some additional wealth or surplus value so that it can provide for others in addition to himself. These can be his wife and children, or others who depend on him, or his subordinates, or even perhaps just paying taxes that the government can use. Regardless, you’re not a man unless you produce at that level.
Again, I’m not saying men have it worse than women. There are plenty of problems and disadvantages that cultures put on women. My point is just that cultures find men useful in these very specific ways. Requiring the man to earn respect by producing wealth and value that can support himself and others is one of these. Women do not face this particular challenge or requirement."