Is There Anything Good About Men?

1. Homosexuals by not being inclined to reproduce may now contribute excess resources to the group well-being.

2. Homosexuals can pick up slack child-rearing duties, e.g. in cases of orphaned children, and do so without the complications and child favoring that happens very frequently when a child is adopted by someone with his own offspring.

Furhter contributing: Homosexuality is not strictly binary, it is a combination of factors, so that those who never mate will not contribute too strong of a homosexual orientation to future generations, there are those who are bisexual or "a little gay" who can keep passing the genes that will make some portion of the population homosexual. Cultural norms of course will play in here as well sometimes being more permissive, other times not, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that there is subtle genetic idea of balance that is driving this cultural throttle to the homosexual thing.

The big thing to remember tho, is that evolution doesn't always select on individual basis, but frequently on a group basis.

NOTE: i use active words here, as if evolution has a goal, but that is just because I don't want to write like: the selection pressures sometimes result in an overal systemic balance and species or group wide advantage while at the same time resulting in some individuals with a much lower reproductive probability.

It reminds me of the theme for 'The Wire.' Systems of culture and how they affect people in them. People can have power in some systems and none in others. The kaleidoscope of outcomes (just and unjust) that come from those systems stem from people in them that (mostly) make fairly rational, self-motivated decisions. Put differently: the systems aren't fair or unfair, right or wrong. They just are.

The author may not have gone into it, but the argument exists, based on what we know about genetics and reproduction.

Female reproduction is inherently limited, first of all by the time it takes to have a single child, second by the probability of death due to childbirth (relatively small, but not insignificant for most of human history), and third by the reduced fertility that comes with age.

Male reproduction is essentially unlimited; the potential maximum "genetic fitness" (measured by simple count of the branches you spawn on the tree of life) of becoming a king and impregnating an entire harem of women over your life is easily 10x the maximum "fitness" for a woman (though the probability is very low for such extreme situations), so it's to be expected that any preferentially male-expressed genes that would increase the probability of ending up in that situation would be more prevalent in the gene pool than the corresponding traits for women (which would be mostly neutral evolutionarily, since a woman with a male harem is not going to spread, on average, more copies of her genes than she would in normal life).

We don't need to assume that the dominant factor is the king + harem situation, either; it's enough merely that men, on average, see wider variability in reproduction than women do (cheating, cuckolding, etc. tend to make that happen).

The "leaps of faith" required to let this explain increased male risk-seeking are:

a) That the traits we associate with risk seeking correlate well with the traits that cause men to be highly genetically successful

b) That the way things actually transpired in history, the variance in male genetic success was, in fact, significantly higher than the variance in female genetic success. Note that we are not talking about averages (they're equal, quite trivially), but variances

If you accept a) (which is not much of a stretch - sleeping with other men's wives is definitely a risk-seeking behavior that increases genetic success for men), then it's absolutely 100% certain that the amount of genetically linked risk-seeking will be higher (or equal) in men than in women. It's very easy to make a similar argument that implies that any genetically linked risk-avoidance genes that are preferentially expressed in females will be more common than those that are expressed in males, at least to the extent that they would reduce male reproductive variance without a corresponding survival benefit.

Bear in mind that your comment about a "self-perpetuating social system" and the things that it encourages may not be entirely off-base, but that doesn't change the genetic imperatives: given what we've seen above, such a social system would align very well with the genetic best interests of its constituents, so it's hardly a stretch to imagine that the two factors have coexisted and reinforced each other quite strongly.

His discussion on relative sex drives (sorry, typo) is spurious because, again, he doesn't separate this from cultural factors like what actions we define as being "normal" sex, and how the sexes relate to each other. The Mosuo, for example, does things differently. Instead of monogamy or polygyny, they have two-way polyamory. Young women are given a private place to bring lovers back to. She can bring home as many lovers as she likes, and the men can go to as many women's homes as they are invited to. If she wants, she invites him back, and if he wants, he goes. I remember reading that at one time, it wasn't unusual for a woman to have fifty partners in her lifetime. Women are under no economic or social pressure to invite lots of men over, so to me, it's really odd that this would be common if women didn't enjoy sex. Mosuo women these days have fewer partners, because they have access to a lot of western media and culture. Some girls are now afraid that if they invite over too many boys, they will be considered "slutty", and this is an image problem that the Mosuo as a whole are having. To me, that looks like proof that women are being discouraged from having as much sex as they'd like to have, thanks to social pressures that are inherent in our own culture. Or at least better proof than saying, "it happens, so it's genetic".