"Internalizing the Oppression"

[Ariseishirou]

to be fair, while we might complain women (and men) are all peak physical fitness in videogames, most of them are doing enormously physically intensive lifestyles so... they kinda have to be. Range of body types, sure, but you probably want more Rhonda Roussey than Rosie O'Donnell just for gameplay's sake.

I think you've touched on something that annoys me more than the fat versus skinny debate; I think it's a good point that it isn't realistic for someone who is morbidly obese to be doing the kinds of things we see video game characters doing, but... it's not like female video game characters look like Rhonda Roussey, either. Even the new Lara Croft doesn't half an upper body half as developed as the female rock-climbers and gymnasts I know, and yet she can do muscle-ups and backflips with the best of them. She looks like a skinny, marginally athletic girl, yet can do things (i.e. muscle-ups) that most _men_ can't do. To be sure, I do know women that can do these things, but they look more like Rhonda than Lara. I myself can do a lot of the things female video game characters can do, like pullups from a dead hang and running a mile at a near sprint, but as a result my body has very visible muscle definition, which 99% of female video game characters do not.

So while it's more "realistic" to have skinny models than very fat ones doing the things you see in a video game, those skinny models aren't actually all that realistic, either.

 

[Something Amyss]

I clicked on this topic by mistake, and ended up reading a bit before I realised this wasn't the thread I wanted. But this:

You, uh, call women who don't look like video game babes "leftovers" who are not "worthwhile" and you wonder why women won't go home with you? Really?

Caught my eye. Actually, moreso than the post that spawned it.

I can't think of how sad it is that the text in question, the stuff that was responded to, is basically what I've come to accept as "price of admission." Not exactly internalised oppression, but certainly a kissing cousin.

 

[McElroy]

I think you've touched on something that annoys me more than the fat versus skinny debate; I think it's a good point that it isn't realistic for someone who is morbidly obese to be doing the kinds of things we see video game characters doing, but... it's not like female video game characters look like Rhonda Roussey, either. Even the new Lara Croft doesn't half an upper body half as developed as the female rock-climbers and gymnasts I know, and yet she can do muscle-ups and backflips with the best of them. She looks like a skinny, marginally athletic girl, yet can do things (i.e. muscle-ups) that most _men_ can't do. To be sure, I do know women that can do these things, but they look more like Rhonda than Lara. I myself can do a lot of the things female video game characters can do, like pullups from a dead hang and running a mile at a near sprint, but as a result my body has very visible muscle definition, which 99% of female video game characters do not.

So while it's more "realistic" to have skinny models than very fat ones doing the things you see in a video game, those skinny models aren't actually all that realistic, either.

Yeah, it's like I pointed out in the "parent thread" with Christie and Eddy being competing fighters despite Eddy being a head taller and 40 kilos heavier. A delicate dancer against a brawler titan, basically.

Anyway, I have to ask what you consider as "near sprint"? Is that a 6-minute mile? 5? 4? If we're being accurate, running 800m in 1m 46s is still near sprint.

 

[mecegirl]

to be fair, while we might complain women (and men) are all peak physical fitness in videogames, most of them are doing enormously physically intensive lifestyles so... they kinda have to be. Range of body types, sure, but you probably want more Rhonda Roussey than Rosie O'Donnell just for gameplay's sake.

I think you've touched on something that annoys me more than the fat versus skinny debate; I think it's a good point that it isn't realistic for someone who is morbidly obese to be doing the kinds of things we see video game characters doing, but... it's not like female video game characters look like Rhonda Roussey, either. Even the new Lara Croft doesn't half an upper body half as developed as the female rock-climbers and gymnasts I know, and yet she can do muscle-ups and backflips with the best of them. She looks like a skinny, marginally athletic girl, yet can do things (i.e. muscle-ups) that most _men_ can't do. To be sure, I do know women that can do these things, but they look more like Rhonda than Lara. I myself can do a lot of the things female video game characters can do, like pullups from a dead hang and running a mile at a near sprint, but as a result my body has very visible muscle definition, which 99% of female video game characters do not.

So while it's more "realistic" to have skinny models than very fat ones doing the things you see in a video game, those skinny models aren't actually all that realistic, either.

All of this! I wouldn't use the term skinny for most women who are highly athletic. Slender maybe. But when you look at Olympic level female gymnasts they are pretty ripped. And most are pretty young(you have to at least be 16) and retire early now days. Women don't get super bulky but we do gain mucle definition if we are highly athletic. All the more if we have been so for years on end.

And then you have to account for body type. Not all women have the capacity to be skinny. The same goes for men, some just have larger frames. A woman like Serena Williams will never be skinny, but no one can claim that she isn't highly active with all the championships she's won. Her level of activity has nothing to do with why she's broader than most female tennis players. So what happens if a female character is put in a role that has less to do with agility? What if she's a tank? Can she be bigger, or even overweight then and still be considered realistic/athletic? Sports like baseball and especially American football have overweight and even obese players. Heavy weightlifters tend to look a lot softer than one would expect. We don't really rag on them for not being athletic, but if some saw them out of uniform they might. So maybe if the roles female characters are given in games were expanded then it could be realistic.

 

[Ariseishirou]

Yeah, it's like I pointed out in the "parent thread" with Christie and Eddy being competing fighters despite Eddy being a head taller and 40 kilos heavier. A delicate dancer against a brawler titan, basically.

Anyway, I have to ask what you consider as "near sprint"? Is that a 6-minute mile? 5? 4? If we're being accurate, running 800m in 1m 46s is still near sprint.

At least in fighting games you've got tiny guys fighting men who would be way out of their weight class, too. With protagonists you've got someone like Nathan Drake who is slim but decidedly muscular enough to do what he does, while female protagonists seem to be able to free climb using arms only with no visible upper body muscle whatsoever. More realistic than a morbidly obese girl doing it? Sure. Realistic? No. Not at all.

A sprint is running at 80-100% of your maximum speed, so your time would depend on how fast you, personally, can run (taking into account age, sex, leg strength, form, etc.), but you still have to be in excellent physical condition to maintain that speed for a mile. I know many women who can pull that off, myself included, but not one of us manages it without visible leg muscle definition. Yet you've got female video game characters with legs as smooth as butter sprinting for hours, because... ...that's what's hot, I guess? Again, it might be more realistic than a morbidly obese girl doing the same, but it's still not actually realistic in any way.

 

[Ariseishirou]

to be fair, while we might complain women (and men) are all peak physical fitness in videogames, most of them are doing enormously physically intensive lifestyles so... they kinda have to be. Range of body types, sure, but you probably want more Rhonda Roussey than Rosie O'Donnell just for gameplay's sake.

I think you've touched on something that annoys me more than the fat versus skinny debate; I think it's a good point that it isn't realistic for someone who is morbidly obese to be doing the kinds of things we see video game characters doing, but... it's not like female video game characters look like Rhonda Roussey, either. Even the new Lara Croft doesn't half an upper body half as developed as the female rock-climbers and gymnasts I know, and yet she can do muscle-ups and backflips with the best of them. She looks like a skinny, marginally athletic girl, yet can do things (i.e. muscle-ups) that most _men_ can't do. To be sure, I do know women that can do these things, but they look more like Rhonda than Lara. I myself can do a lot of the things female video game characters can do, like pullups from a dead hang and running a mile at a near sprint, but as a result my body has very visible muscle definition, which 99% of female video game characters do not.

So while it's more "realistic" to have skinny models than very fat ones doing the things you see in a video game, those skinny models aren't actually all that realistic, either.

All of this! I wouldn't use the term skinny for most women who are highly athletic. Slender maybe. But when you look at Olympic level female gymnasts they are pretty ripped. And most are pretty young(you have to at least be 16) and retire early now days. Women don't get super bulky but we do gain mucle definition if we are highly athletic. All the more if we have been so for years on end.

And then you have to account for body type. Not all women have the capacity to be skinny. The same goes for men, some just have larger frames. A woman like Serena Williams will never be skinny, but no one can claim that she isn't highly active with all the championships she's won. Her level of activity has nothing to do with why she's broader than most female tennis players. So what happens if a female character is put in a role that has less to do with agility? What if she's a tank? Can she be bigger, or even overweight then and still be considered realistic/athletic? Sports like baseball and especially American football have overweight and even obese players. Heavy weightlifters tend to look a lot softer than one would expect. We don't really rag on them for not being athletic, but if some saw them out of uniform they might. So maybe if the roles female characters are given in games were expanded then it could be realistic.

The lack of variation of body types within the "fit" or athletic or powerful range for female characters in video games puts to the lie any assertion that this about what's "realistic." Just because it may not be realistic to have a fat Rikku doing backflips or a fat Lara free climbing a sheer cliff face doesn't mean that designers aren't all too happy to discard realism to have a petite girl wield a huge broadsword or have a woman with baby-smooth legs run a marathon (her DDD-cups bouncing all the way). If it were about realism we'd get lithe but hard runners with almost no breasts, strong-fat tanks wielding heavy weapons, etc., just like we do with male characters. But it's not and it never was.

Idk I get why they do it - they think these character designs will appeal more to their largest audience, which is heterosexual males - and that's fair enough, but trying to rationalize it away as "realism" is spinning the ol' hamster wheel so hard it could power the eastern seaboard.

 

[Paragon Fury]

our "lived experience" is that the Gordon Freemans of the world get to go home alone or get to take home the leftovers, while the Dantes, Links, Marcus Fenixes of get to take home the best of the best and the worthwhile ones.

You, uh, call women who don't look like video game babes "leftovers" who are not "worthwhile" and you wonder why women won't go home with you? Really?

PS: I don't know a single woman (out of the hundreds of gamer women I know) who finds Marcus Fenix attractive. He is absolutely, 100% male power fantasy. Dante? Yes, many. Leon? Yep. But that has a lot to do with the fact that they have pretty faces, not that they're built like brick shithouses (see: Link)(see also: pop stars, actors). The fact that you seem to think Marcus Fenix is some kind of female sexual ideal and not an ideal intended for teenaged boys is absolutely bonkers and makes me wonder if you've had a female friend in your entire life.

1: I wasn't saying women have to look like video game characters; that is a pretty big leap. What I was saying was that many video game females don't have bodies that are that unrealistic - IE: Helena, Riku, Cortana from the original article.

2: It was a harsh phrasing, but yes. Go into a bar, a club, a convention, a classroom or basically any social activity and its not terribly hard if you've had any practice to basically take all the women and men in there and figure out the ones whom everyone willing be trying to get the attention of. The "leftovers" are the men and women at the bottom who very few if anyone will be or want to be interested in until the ones closer to the top are either taken or they realize that they don't have a chance.

And yes, I know I'm one of the leftovers. I don't have the money, the looks and I have the social skills and charisma of a sack of potatoes; I know exactly what my purchasing power in the world is as far as this goes, and I know its very low - I've never said anything otherwise.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

Well those bodies ARE unrealistic. Just like someone else in this thread said. Around 90% of women are physically incapable of getting those bodies, no matter how hard they try. And that's without taking into account that getting a skinny figure AND giant tits is damn near impossible.

You'd be surprised at how many people have an obvious flaw in some sense, crooked teeth, funny shaped nose, charismatic as a sack of bricks. Very and I mean VERY few people meet these high video game expectations that you have. You'd be better off having your expectations tempered to be a bit more realistic.

 

[mecegirl]

our "lived experience" is that the Gordon Freemans of the world get to go home alone or get to take home the leftovers, while the Dantes, Links, Marcus Fenixes of get to take home the best of the best and the worthwhile ones.

You, uh, call women who don't look like video game babes "leftovers" who are not "worthwhile" and you wonder why women won't go home with you? Really?

PS: I don't know a single woman (out of the hundreds of gamer women I know) who finds Marcus Fenix attractive. He is absolutely, 100% male power fantasy. Dante? Yes, many. Leon? Yep. But that has a lot to do with the fact that they have pretty faces, not that they're built like brick shithouses (see: Link)(see also: pop stars, actors). The fact that you seem to think Marcus Fenix is some kind of female sexual ideal and not an ideal intended for teenaged boys is absolutely bonkers and makes me wonder if you've had a female friend in your entire life.

1: I wasn't saying women have to look like video game characters; that is a pretty big leap. What I was saying was that many video game females don't have bodies that are that unrealistic - IE: Helena, Riku, Cortana from the original article.

2: It was a harsh phrasing, but yes. Go into a bar, a club, a convention, a classroom or basically any social activity and its not terribly hard if you've had any practice to basically take all the women and men in there and figure out the ones whom everyone willing be trying to get the attention of. The "leftovers" are the men and women at the bottom who very few if anyone will be or want to be interested in until the ones closer to the top are either taken or they realize that they don't have a chance.

And yes, I know I'm one of the leftovers. I don't have the money, the looks and I have the social skills and charisma of a sack of potatoes; I know exactly what my purchasing power in the world is as far as this goes, and I know its very low - I've never said anything otherwise.

Part of the problem people are having with your statements is that you say nothing of the people in the middle. Which is horribly melodramatic. The world isn't divided into 10 and 1's. There are a lot of people in the middle. And they do just fine in the relationship and or hook up department.

 

[mecegirl]

In fact by definition the world is mostly 4's, 5's, and 6's.

Gordan Freeman isn't even ugly. Some would consider him slightly above average. Have you ever heard the term Hollywood ugly(it mostly relates the homely girl who gets a makeover in romance movies)? I feel like that's what he could be considered. Not at all ugly when compared to "normal" people but not really average either? I don't know why Paragon singled him out in his example. A guy who looked like him would have no trouble getting a date with a woman that he had a good rapport with.

 

[Something Amyss]

Have you ever heard the term Hollywood ugly(it mostly relates the homely girl who gets a makeover in romance movies)?

You mean the one with the girl who has all the clothes I like magically transforms by getting rid of them and lowering her hair?

I feel like that's what he could be considered. I don't know why Paragon singled him out in his example. A guy who looked like him would have no trouble getting a date with a woman that he had a good rapport with.

Actually, Gordon's the third part of that trope. How did I forget the glasses? Take a knockout, put glasses on them, and BOOM! Ugly character. Or, in the case of Hollywood with men, it's usually instant nerd more than instant ugly.

 

[Tilly]

Part of the issue, I think, is that these "idealistic or very high-end" body types are pretty ubiquitous for women in media, and the same standard is not applied to men. I don't think many people would complain if "ideal" body types turned up once in a while in media-- it's that they're everywhere, and far more common than the average, and that that's true only for one sex.

I agree with that. Although men do face similarly bad expectations in other ways. With women it does tend to be about looks. With men it's usually about either confidence or wealth.

 

[one squirrel]

Part of the issue, I think, is that these "idealistic or very high-end" body types are pretty ubiquitous for women in media, and the same standard is not applied to men. I don't think many people would complain if "ideal" body types turned up once in a while in media-- it's that they're everywhere, and far more common than the average, and that that's true only for one sex.

I agree with that. Although men do face similarly bad expectations in other ways. With women it does tend to be about looks. With men it's usually about either confidence or wealth.

Holy shit, here is someone who actually get's it. Male and female attractiveness are very different things. Being pretty is very high up in the list of things that make a woman attractive, probably the most important factor, and it is quite low on the list of things that make men attractive. Just because male video game characters can have more diverse looks, it doesn't mean that games don't tend to portray an above average or even unrealistic picture of what a man can or should be.

How many male game protagonists are there, who are losers, have cripplingly low self esteem or are the stereotypical creepy nice guy? Not too many, because men don't want to be like them and women don't find them attractive.

And that is not even a problem. A big part of art and fiction has always been the celebreation of beauty and confidence, the aspiration to be better than you can be in real life.

 

[s0denone]

Part of the issue, I think, is that these "idealistic or very high-end" body types are pretty ubiquitous for women in media, and the same standard is not applied to men. I don't think many people would complain if "ideal" body types turned up once in a while in media-- it's that they're everywhere, and far more common than the average, and that that's true only for one sex.

I agree with that. Although men do face similarly bad expectations in other ways. With women it does tend to be about looks. With men it's usually about either confidence or wealth.

Holy shit, here is someone who actually get's it. Male and female attractiveness are very different things. Being pretty is very high up in the list of things that make a woman attractive, probably the most important factor, and it is quite low on the list of things that make men attractive. Just because male video game characters can have more diverse looks, it doesn't mean that games don't tend to portray an above average or even unrealistic picture of what a man can or should be.

How many male game protagonists are there, who are losers, have cripplingly low self esteem or are the stereotypical creepy nice guy? Not too many, because men don't want to be like them and women don't find them attractive.

Oh, found a lot of obese male protagonists, did you?
A lot of those appleshapes? A lot of the fatties with the bad teeth and bad hair?

Being handsome "quite low on the lost of things that make men attractive"??? What world are you living in?

And that is not even a problem. A big part of art and fiction has always been the celebreation of beauty and confidence, the aspiration to be better than you can be in real life.

Now that we can agree on - but even so, why is it such a problem? Society will always set a golden standard: Something to strive towards. Why is it such a bad thing, to willingly move towards the ideal?

 

[s0denone]

The one in which Ron Jeremy is a porn star? Can you imagine a mainstream female star with looks like a pudgy hedgehog?

Ron Jeremy became a symbol of the 80's when he was a pornstar, which was... In the 80's and into the 90's. Then he lived on not because he was fit or particularly special, but because he had become an icon and attained significant status - not only the in the porn industry, but as a mainstream figure, because of how he embodied a dead and dying age.

Do porn stars look like Ron Jeremy in present day?

No.

 

[Tilly]

Oh, found a lot of obese male protagonists, did you?
A lot of those appleshapes? A lot of the fatties with the bad teeth and bad hair?

Being handsome "quite low on the lost of things that make men attractive"??? What world are you living in?

I think quite low on the list is probably an exaggeration. But an ugly rich guy can have a lot more sexual success than an ugly rich woman can.
And a poor but hot woman can do a lot better than a poor but hot guy.

 

[s0denone]

Are male pornstars (in straight flicks obviously) more like Jeremy or female pornstars?

Jeremy. They often look like they just got out of prison, at best.

Are male pornstars more like males or females? What?

If you mean if they are more fat slobs or more tan, slim and muscular? The answer is clearly the latter.
The male pornstars of today look nothing like Ron Jeremy. Are you high!?

I think quite low on the list is probably an exaggeration. But an ugly rich guy can have a lot more sexual success than an ugly rich woman can.

Says who? There's a lot of sugarmammies out there, believe you me. Just because sugardaddies are more well-known doesn't mean the other doesn't exist; or is at the same values.

As it stands, I think it is more a case of men being more willing to pay money to attain something deeply connected to his own self-worth (in many cases) because man is taught that a man who can have a woman is more of man than one who can't. That is another debate, however. Let me just stress that I know sugarmammies exist, they are just still less widespread (and get a lot less press as a result) than sugardaddies. I think that will change in maybe ten or twenty years, when the woman has solidified her stand in the working market further, and the "career-woman" (just as the career man) comes to realise that a young hot stud by their side will increase their status significantly, particularly because they have been putting "relationships" on the back-burning in their quest for success.

And a poor but hot woman can do a lot better than a poor but hot guy.

Haha! Absolutely not.
When you say "poor" do you mean unemployed? Someone who is a bum? None of those do good at reaching any social milestones.
If you mean a man or woman in a low-paying job? Those two, I would argue, are able to achieve just about the same in what we are talking about.

This whole argument that men are much more shallow than women in terms of the looks of their partner, while all woman care about is money is a frighteningly gross exaggaration, which really holds less and less of a place the society of today. This isn't the 1950's anymore, where the women were staying at home and their whole way of life was entirely dependant upon the size of their husbands wallet.

 

[Ariseishirou]

Part of the issue, I think, is that these "idealistic or very high-end" body types are pretty ubiquitous for women in media, and the same standard is not applied to men. I don't think many people would complain if "ideal" body types turned up once in a while in media-- it's that they're everywhere, and far more common than the average, and that that's true only for one sex.

I agree with that. Although men do face similarly bad expectations in other ways. With women it does tend to be about looks. With men it's usually about either confidence or wealth.

Holy shit, here is someone who actually get's it. Male and female attractiveness are very different things. Being pretty is very high up in the list of things that make a woman attractive, probably the most important factor, and it is quite low on the list of things that make men attractive. Just because male video game characters can have more diverse looks, it doesn't mean that games don't tend to portray an above average or even unrealistic picture of what a man can or should be.

How many male game protagonists are there, who are losers, have cripplingly low self esteem or are the stereotypical creepy nice guy? Not too many, because men don't want to be like them and women don't find them attractive.

And that is not even a problem. A big part of art and fiction has always been the celebreation of beauty and confidence, the aspiration to be better than you can be in real life.

No, physical attractiveness is right near the top of what makes men attractive, also, but things like money or status also confer money or status on his sexual partners, which they are willing to grit their teeth and ignore his unattractiveness to obtain. In and of themselves they do not "attract" anyone sexually; they "attract" mates in the same way a high-paying, high-status job attracts applicants.

And yes, I've seen hot young studs with rich cougars; more and more, these days. My best friend's mom is a (widowed) 50-something multi-millionaire dating a 26-year-old athlete. I imagine he's doing about as much gritting and bearing as any given (soon to be ex-)wife of Donald Trump.

 

[Ariseishirou]

Part of the issue, I think, is that these "idealistic or very high-end" body types are pretty ubiquitous for women in media, and the same standard is not applied to men. I don't think many people would complain if "ideal" body types turned up once in a while in media-- it's that they're everywhere, and far more common than the average, and that that's true only for one sex.

I agree with that. Although men do face similarly bad expectations in other ways. With women it does tend to be about looks. With men it's usually about either confidence or wealth.

Holy shit, here is someone who actually get's it. Male and female attractiveness are very different things. Being pretty is very high up in the list of things that make a woman attractive, probably the most important factor, and it is quite low on the list of things that make men attractive. Just because male video game characters can have more diverse looks, it doesn't mean that games don't tend to portray an above average or even unrealistic picture of what a man can or should be.

How many male game protagonists are there, who are losers, have cripplingly low self esteem or are the stereotypical creepy nice guy? Not too many, because men don't want to be like them and women don't find them attractive.

And that is not even a problem. A big part of art and fiction has always been the celebreation of beauty and confidence, the aspiration to be better than you can be in real life.

No, physical attractiveness is right near the top of what makes men attractive, also, but things like money or status also confer money or status on his sexual partners, which they are willing to grit their teeth and ignore his unattractiveness to obtain. In and of themselves they do not "attract" anyone sexually; they "attract" mates in the same way a high-paying, high-status job attracts applicants.

And yes, I've seen hot young studs with rich cougars; more and more, these days. My best friend's mom is a (widowed) 50-something multi-millionaire dating a 26-year-old athlete. I imagine he's doing about as much gritting and bearing as any given (soon to be ex-)wife of Donald Trump.

We're more familiar with Larry King and his procession of (nearly) teen brides, and that kind of thing however. It's not about exceptions, but the rule. I don't believe that anyone is seriously claiming that a women is with Larry King for something other than money?

I don't know, I sometimes find it hard to parse when someone talks about "attraction" for men and women being "different." As regards sexual attraction? It's really not. Young, healthy, symmetrical features, etc. Confidence and charisma. In terms of men being able gain the attention of sexually attractive women through wealth and power? It's not really all that different either, it's increasingly turning out, now that women have wealth and power too (if it ever was, when they did). It's just that, historically, they didn't (as much). But the way people speak about it - as the commenter I replied to did - they make it sound as if the wealth and power make a man sexually attractive to a woman, and... it doesn't. At all. But what that wealth and power can purchase does "attract" women (and men) - not to the person, but to it.

I'd like to think no one's that really that deluded, but I've certainly seen comments to that effect (i.e. that "looks don't matter to women, they want stability and security") and haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Yes. They do. Sorry, son, that broke but pretty aspiring musician is swimming in so much pussy he'd need an olympic-sized pool. Women are taught to ignore that in order to "get ahead" in the world; doesn't mean that's what gets us going in the downstairs department. There are no Wall Street bankers in our pin-up calendars. Older men who marry much younger women also have a false paternity rate 5-10 times higher than the average population, so the chances are good it's a win-win of marrying the ugly old rich dude while banging the hot pool boy, too.

 

[Tilly]

This whole argument that men are much more shallow than women in terms of the looks of their partner, while all woman care about is money is a frighteningly gross exaggaration, which really holds less and less of a place the society of today. This isn't the 1950's anymore, where the women were staying at home and their whole way of life was entirely dependant upon the size of their husbands wallet.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/7954208/The-Cougar-concept-older-women-preying-on-younger-men-is-a-myth-claim-scientists.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships

This isn't just social norms so the year you quote is meaningless, there are well understood reasons in biology for why you're more likely to find men being attracted to more youthful women than vice versa. It's quite simply because women can have children for a much shorter time than men. That naturally works its way into male psychology through natural selection.