A striking recent social change is the rise of women's team sports, especially in schools and in universities.
Do athletes and coaches in women's team sports exhibit different social psychology about status, competition, conflict, and dispute-resolution, compared to athletes and coached in men's team sports?
Does intensive participation in team sports inculcate durable changes in psychologies of status (cooperation, conflict) among females — changes that might carry over to mating, career, the workplace?
That's a good question. I wonder how much of the increase in women's sports is driven by college admissions, in so far as young women are interested in team sports because it helps get them into college. One could probably measure that by looking at the comparative rates of men/women in sports/competitions before college and the rates after. My very limited casual empirics sees mostly men involved in competitive team sports after graduation, but then it might just be the competitions I see are the type that men are interested in. If there are women's soccer leagues I quite possibly could be the last to know! Still, most amateur sports seem to be mostly men, with the exception of roller derby. That's an interesting outlier, there.
Having spent a good portion of my adult life playing organized baseball/softball and basketball, I note that women playing beyond college/grad school is basically zilch. It is never problem finding enough men for a team in any age group up to age 50-60.
Yea, I remember as a youth there being a women’s softball league of some sort that played near the pool I worked at, but that was just about it. (Although it was a very sparsely populated area so the per capita was probably not so small.)
I suspect there is an important distinction not just between team sports but competitive vs non competitive sports. Team sports tend to be competitive by default, whereas individual sports tend to be both competitive and just for fun.
There are a lot scholarships available for women athletes that wouldn't exist without the dictates of Title IX. One idea might be to compare sports participation rates in the US to some other developed country that doesn't have anything like Title IX.
While it is possible or even likely girls have become more interested in sports since Title 9, I don't think there's any doubt that for both kids and adults, men are more interested in sports. And while the ratios may be a bit different for team and individual sports, men are more interested in individual sports too. There are a few sports that attract more females than males, gymnastics and figure skating being two, but in the big picture these aren't all that big.
I went to school just a bit after Title 9 but before it meant there had to be as many slots on teams for women as men. Besides football both my high school and college had more mens basketball teams (freshman, JV) than girls and more kids wanting to be on them. I think there was more interest from men in most other sports too. I have no doubt there was more interest in sports from boys when my kids were in school too.
Women team sports (especially college), e.g., basketball, softball, soccer, will always have open spots as women want to play, not ride the bench. Women, if not appearing in games, soon lose interest. Women's sports where competing as individuals, e.g., gymnastics, swimming, tennis, golf are a different kettle of fish.
Men will compete to make the team, even if they never play in a single game. Being on the team just for practice is sufficient for the male camaraderie and esprit de corps.
The psychological dynamics are just different as between men and women regarding team sport competition.
These timeless truths about human sexual competition shower down on you like drops of refreshing summer rain. And so obviously true are they that it is a remarkable thing just how little traction they have in the vast majority of journalism about men and women as sexual beings.
The post if for paid subscribers only, but the excerpts sounded a lot like Joyce F. Benenson's Warriors and Worriers, a book well-worth reading. Arnold has written about it.
1. You're describing competition for mates, not competition for status. Or, you need to explain how "status" is something other than "attractiveness to potential mates" - accepting that men compete for all women and all women compete for a particular man.
2.a) "A society where men compete for prestige will be much more successful than a society where men compete on the basis of dominance."
2.b) "A society where male competition for mates is attenuated by norms of monogamy and equality will have more overall cohesion than a society where the most successful men get a huge share of mates and other men get none."
A society where male competition for mates is attenuated is one where men don't compete. That's a problem for the theory that male competition for prestige will be more successful: what if they don't compete?
In fact, in our modern society we have shifted away from monogamy and it is proving to be an environment where men become LESS likely to compete. So apparently monogamy may INCREASE male competition for mates - possibly both by "prestige" and by "dominance". This actually makes sense: if men can have one - but only one - they're going to compete vigorously for the BEST one (and let's be clear, BEST for prestige purposes = arm candy); if most men won't have one at all, why compete?
2a. and 2b. look like "just so" theories that not only fail to accord with each other, but fail to accord with the facts, too, in some ways. (I do agree that competition on the basis of accomplishment is more constructive than competition on the basis of dominance.)
Attention-based social networks with lots (super-Dunbar) of weak/thin ties and high noise/signal ratio, would seem to select for, and amplify, the worst dynamics: aggression, deception, tribalism, reputational attacks, and an overall heightening of status salience. This series' posts on dating have also touched on this. Technological changes may be a bigger story than changes in gender dynamics.
There are many, many contexts where cooperation and teamwork provide benefits, both in contemporary and ancestral environments. Seems like an instance of the kind of superficiality that gets evolutionary psych a bad rep.
Fascinating and I agree with the differences except for a key point about causation: "the women stand back and observe, and then choose the victor." No, their father or the tribal elder does. Women rarely have the freedom to choose their husband, even now in many, many places and certainly not for most of the thousands of years since male paternity was discovered and became established as the line of succession. A woman's way to status and survival is as a favorite and enforcer in their husband's household once married off. That's where women's rivalries lie, and they are real and viciously enforced on pain of banishment and death. It's a big mistake to think societies gave much weight at all to the romantic whims of adolescent girls.
Agentic isn't in my Webster's 10th. I'm not sure that context gives me an accurate definition. Sorry to trouble you, but could you help me out? I do appreciate your delving into this area: thought-provoking!
I'm curious about what "no interest in dating" means.
Women are by far the more interested in marriage. Men are more interested in sex. "Dating" may be understood to mean "noncommitted sexual relationships".
When measuring happiness of the "unmarried" it's important to do that as "ever-married" and "never-married". I think you'll find it shifts the results dramatically.
Children have changed from being a retirement plan to "incredibly expensive shih tzus". Much of that incredible expense comes from our higher minimum standards for child welfare, from prohibitions on child labor to requirements for car seats and day care, and criminal prosecutions of the parents of "free range kids". Family law penalizes men for having children, to an insane degree, and men increasingly know it. Meanwhile, women still internalize a social expectation that they must be the first responders to all their children's needs and wants - the "soccer Mom" and the "helicopter Mom" phenomena that emerged since the late '80s.
Children today have value to society but involve huge private cost. If we as a society want more children we need to stop expecting women to bear and care them to very high standards, alone, and fining men exorbitantly for being fathers (while, often, excluding them from fatherhood - looking at you, New York). Or, we can keep merging traditional roles with elevated standards (costs) and watch the schools empty out.
Single men are much more unhappy than single women. The Industrialized nuclear family has been rejected by women over and over since we all left the land hundreds of years ago. A man's home may be his castle but his wife hasn't been happy as his housekeeper.
Single women definitely have lower earnings, but women seem to be better at sustaining relationships other than thier married partners which is protective in several ways. It would be interesting to see stats differentiated by sex.
Re: "Men may be more team-oriented."
A striking recent social change is the rise of women's team sports, especially in schools and in universities.
Do athletes and coaches in women's team sports exhibit different social psychology about status, competition, conflict, and dispute-resolution, compared to athletes and coached in men's team sports?
Does intensive participation in team sports inculcate durable changes in psychologies of status (cooperation, conflict) among females — changes that might carry over to mating, career, the workplace?
That's a good question. I wonder how much of the increase in women's sports is driven by college admissions, in so far as young women are interested in team sports because it helps get them into college. One could probably measure that by looking at the comparative rates of men/women in sports/competitions before college and the rates after. My very limited casual empirics sees mostly men involved in competitive team sports after graduation, but then it might just be the competitions I see are the type that men are interested in. If there are women's soccer leagues I quite possibly could be the last to know! Still, most amateur sports seem to be mostly men, with the exception of roller derby. That's an interesting outlier, there.
Having spent a good portion of my adult life playing organized baseball/softball and basketball, I note that women playing beyond college/grad school is basically zilch. It is never problem finding enough men for a team in any age group up to age 50-60.
Roller derby. Hundreds of leagues and thousands of teams. 97% women.
Yea, I remember as a youth there being a women’s softball league of some sort that played near the pool I worked at, but that was just about it. (Although it was a very sparsely populated area so the per capita was probably not so small.)
I suspect there is an important distinction not just between team sports but competitive vs non competitive sports. Team sports tend to be competitive by default, whereas individual sports tend to be both competitive and just for fun.
Now, I do see quite a few older women playing tennis on the local courts, and older women playing golf on the courses.
Which are, of course, not team sports.
Exactly.
There are a lot scholarships available for women athletes that wouldn't exist without the dictates of Title IX. One idea might be to compare sports participation rates in the US to some other developed country that doesn't have anything like Title IX.
While it is possible or even likely girls have become more interested in sports since Title 9, I don't think there's any doubt that for both kids and adults, men are more interested in sports. And while the ratios may be a bit different for team and individual sports, men are more interested in individual sports too. There are a few sports that attract more females than males, gymnastics and figure skating being two, but in the big picture these aren't all that big.
I went to school just a bit after Title 9 but before it meant there had to be as many slots on teams for women as men. Besides football both my high school and college had more mens basketball teams (freshman, JV) than girls and more kids wanting to be on them. I think there was more interest from men in most other sports too. I have no doubt there was more interest in sports from boys when my kids were in school too.
Women team sports (especially college), e.g., basketball, softball, soccer, will always have open spots as women want to play, not ride the bench. Women, if not appearing in games, soon lose interest. Women's sports where competing as individuals, e.g., gymnastics, swimming, tennis, golf are a different kettle of fish.
Men will compete to make the team, even if they never play in a single game. Being on the team just for practice is sufficient for the male camaraderie and esprit de corps.
The psychological dynamics are just different as between men and women regarding team sport competition.
These timeless truths about human sexual competition shower down on you like drops of refreshing summer rain. And so obviously true are they that it is a remarkable thing just how little traction they have in the vast majority of journalism about men and women as sexual beings.
The only thing I would add is this: "In ancestral environments.....there WAS a lot of tribal warfare." No in fact there still IS a lot of tribal warfare: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/life-in-the-shadows-of-metoo
The post if for paid subscribers only, but the excerpts sounded a lot like Joyce F. Benenson's Warriors and Worriers, a book well-worth reading. Arnold has written about it.
Several things:
1. You're describing competition for mates, not competition for status. Or, you need to explain how "status" is something other than "attractiveness to potential mates" - accepting that men compete for all women and all women compete for a particular man.
2.a) "A society where men compete for prestige will be much more successful than a society where men compete on the basis of dominance."
2.b) "A society where male competition for mates is attenuated by norms of monogamy and equality will have more overall cohesion than a society where the most successful men get a huge share of mates and other men get none."
A society where male competition for mates is attenuated is one where men don't compete. That's a problem for the theory that male competition for prestige will be more successful: what if they don't compete?
In fact, in our modern society we have shifted away from monogamy and it is proving to be an environment where men become LESS likely to compete. So apparently monogamy may INCREASE male competition for mates - possibly both by "prestige" and by "dominance". This actually makes sense: if men can have one - but only one - they're going to compete vigorously for the BEST one (and let's be clear, BEST for prestige purposes = arm candy); if most men won't have one at all, why compete?
2a. and 2b. look like "just so" theories that not only fail to accord with each other, but fail to accord with the facts, too, in some ways. (I do agree that competition on the basis of accomplishment is more constructive than competition on the basis of dominance.)
Attention-based social networks with lots (super-Dunbar) of weak/thin ties and high noise/signal ratio, would seem to select for, and amplify, the worst dynamics: aggression, deception, tribalism, reputational attacks, and an overall heightening of status salience. This series' posts on dating have also touched on this. Technological changes may be a bigger story than changes in gender dynamics.
There are many, many contexts where cooperation and teamwork provide benefits, both in contemporary and ancestral environments. Seems like an instance of the kind of superficiality that gets evolutionary psych a bad rep.
I don't understand. What are you saying is superficial and why does it give a bad rap?
Evolutionary psych creeps me out.
Fascinating and I agree with the differences except for a key point about causation: "the women stand back and observe, and then choose the victor." No, their father or the tribal elder does. Women rarely have the freedom to choose their husband, even now in many, many places and certainly not for most of the thousands of years since male paternity was discovered and became established as the line of succession. A woman's way to status and survival is as a favorite and enforcer in their husband's household once married off. That's where women's rivalries lie, and they are real and viciously enforced on pain of banishment and death. It's a big mistake to think societies gave much weight at all to the romantic whims of adolescent girls.
Agentic isn't in my Webster's 10th. I'm not sure that context gives me an accurate definition. Sorry to trouble you, but could you help me out? I do appreciate your delving into this area: thought-provoking!
A Google search goes here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/agentic#:~:text=That%20behaves%20like%20an%20agent,on%20the%20behalf%20of%20another.
I'm curious about what "no interest in dating" means.
Women are by far the more interested in marriage. Men are more interested in sex. "Dating" may be understood to mean "noncommitted sexual relationships".
When measuring happiness of the "unmarried" it's important to do that as "ever-married" and "never-married". I think you'll find it shifts the results dramatically.
Children have changed from being a retirement plan to "incredibly expensive shih tzus". Much of that incredible expense comes from our higher minimum standards for child welfare, from prohibitions on child labor to requirements for car seats and day care, and criminal prosecutions of the parents of "free range kids". Family law penalizes men for having children, to an insane degree, and men increasingly know it. Meanwhile, women still internalize a social expectation that they must be the first responders to all their children's needs and wants - the "soccer Mom" and the "helicopter Mom" phenomena that emerged since the late '80s.
Children today have value to society but involve huge private cost. If we as a society want more children we need to stop expecting women to bear and care them to very high standards, alone, and fining men exorbitantly for being fathers (while, often, excluding them from fatherhood - looking at you, New York). Or, we can keep merging traditional roles with elevated standards (costs) and watch the schools empty out.
Single men are much more unhappy than single women. The Industrialized nuclear family has been rejected by women over and over since we all left the land hundreds of years ago. A man's home may be his castle but his wife hasn't been happy as his housekeeper.
Single women definitely have lower earnings, but women seem to be better at sustaining relationships other than thier married partners which is protective in several ways. It would be interesting to see stats differentiated by sex.
What do you mean by native?