What Is Male Strength Today?

Amy and Alan sought couples therapy because they were unhappy with each other. Amy complained that Alan didn’t do enough around the house. Their first therapist suggested he do more. He did, but it seemed to make Amy more miserable. That’s when they happened on some evolutionary therapy. In an individual session, Alan was advised to make more suggestions, propose outings, buy small gifts, show less vulnerability, and seek more things to do on his own. The relationship improved.

What was the logic of the intervention? Women generally don’t seek marriage, or sex, with their servants—unless, perhaps, they’re gamekeepers. In fact, women generally want a man who in one way or another shows strength and competence. Throughout human evolutionary history, women needed someone who would help them raise children successfully. During a crucial period in the formation of the human genome, this goal was achieved via a sexual division of labor: The men hunted and the women, as a group, took care of the young children while gathering. These roles made sense in light of the physical characteristics of the genders, in particular, the ability of the female to nurse the offspring.

In the hunter-gatherer world, a “strong” man was a good hunter, and both sexes made valuable and valued, though different, contributions to survival. Today, there is no natural, agreed-upon division of labor between the sexes. Childcare is also available for those who can afford it.

Furthermore, the programmable cortex is at war with the very idea of a sexual division of labor. Its theme song might be these lines from Annie Get Your Gun: Anything you can do I can do better.” In other words, the cortex has created a vision of male-female relationships that often contradicts biology and our evolutionary heritage. As a result, men and women are often obliged to play the same roles and even compete with one another for the same rewards.

This absence of a meaningful division of labor today can sometimes make it hard for a man to be strong without being oppressive and hard for a woman to know what strength in a man should look like. This situation can create some devilish dynamics from evolution’s playbook. Here are some examples.

Roy was a “good guy.” He always made a decent living and brought his money home. He really enjoyed pleasing his wife. He deliberately looked for opportunities to make decisions his wife would like. Unfortunately, this life plan wasn’t working out. As time went on, he noticed that his wife seemed to be distancing herself from him. He was advised to focus on his own life, especially his personal development, and to keep bringing up topics of interest to him when interacting with his wife. Again, the relationship improved. Conclusion: Nice can be seen as weak; helpful can be seen as subordinate.

When Carl and Rhoda first got married, he loved to kid around, dis and be dissed. If anything, Rhoda was more sensitive. But over time, Carl became sensitive to her opinion of him. He would look pained when one of her jabs hit home. This made her angry. She looked for ways to provoke him to see if she could get the strong man to reappear. He started to plead with her to bring forth the sweet supportive woman he once knew. In vain.

Virginia was an efficient housekeeper. Ralph brought home the money. But he recognized that, in the contemporary world, he needed to participate in the upkeep of the house. So, he took responsibility for the kitchen cleanup. He noticed, however, that Virginia often made a sour face when she saw him at the sink. He eventually realized that she didn’t enjoy seeing him in what she felt was a subordinate role, even temporarily, though she often had many opportunities to see him in more attractive roles. One day, he confronted her: “You like getting the dishes done, but you don’t like seeing me do them.” Fortunately, Virginia recognized that making sour faces wasn’t in the best interests of the relationship.

Evolution embedded what might be called a partial “non-compete agreement” in the genomes of men and women. We can seek to rediscover a division of labor in which the efforts of both are valued or we can choose to disregard it. But if we disregard it, there can sometimes be costs.