Men Make History, But Women Raise Boys to Manhood

(Note: This is an edited version of a comment I originally posted on Reddit.)

Biologically speaking men and women are different, and as a result they have different strengths and weaknesses, comparative advantages and comparative disadvantages. A woman would never be as effective of a man as an actual man, and a man can never be as good of a woman as an actual woman, when controlled for something that we could perhaps loosely refer to as “status”. For example, there are plenty of women who without breaking a sweat can defeat almost all of the world’s male players at tennis. But when you compare a man and a woman at a similar social status (e.g., D1, professional), you find that the man is in every single case lightyears better. Sports are, with almost no exceptions, something that biologically speaking men are simply better at. There are a lot of top female players who are clearly as successful as they are because they have an unusually masculine hormone balance, and in that sense they’ve gotten to the top of that particular female-exclusive hierarchy because they’re more like men than most of the women who are also competing. But they’ll never be as good at being men as they would be if they were actually biologically male.

Now, in case it looks like I’m trying to advocate some sort of delusional position of male supremacy, let me re-iterate that I not only think that women will never be as good of men as actual men, but also the reverse: that men will never be as good of women as actual women. The West is going through a crisis this time in history. Not to be too crass, but the men are turning into shitty version of women, and the women are turning into shitty versions of men. I don’t think that men are objectively better than women at everything, but rather that they’re obviously better at certain things. And that goes for women as well. It seems that both the male supremacists, and the pseudo-feminists (those who pretend to fight for women but actually hold up male power as the ideal), are committing a major error that can only occur when viewing society with an ‘autistic’ lens, and failing to notice all of the deeply woven social nuance that goes on behind closed doors. To be clear: It’s easier to notice male greatness, because male greatness is explicit, up front, and can be written about in history books with ease. But female greatness is different; it’s often behind the scenes. Men may make history, but women raise boys into manhood, and behind most powerful men is a deeply influential woman.

I don’t think that men are better than women, and I don’t think that women are better than men. I see them as different, and I consider the modern Western movement to erase from view these deeply significant differences as profoundly damaging to the psychological and sociological landscape. Are we seriously to throw away all of the past accomplishments of women simply because such accomplishments are hard to write about in the history books? I often remember that one of my deepest intellectual influences, Ludwig von Mises, had one other sibling that survived to adulthood, a brother who was also a world-class academic; and that F. A. Hayek once mentioned that when he dined at Mises’ house, he felt that Mises’ mother had a deeply significant presence at the table even though she simply listened to them talk while she ate, and then got up and quietly left when she was done. Something about that family produced greatness; it was surely no accident, with the two children achieving what they achieved. But we’ll never know almost anything of significance about what the mother did when raising her sons. Mises’ great treatises remain in existence for all to read, but the decisions of Mises’ mother when raising her sons weren’t recorded, and for that matter are likely part of a sphere of life that’s scarcely understood by the male-dominated field of scientific analysis.