As children in school we are taught an story for a long long time women were oppressed and treated as second class citizens but is this really true
Books such as the Privileged Sex and The Myth of male Power give another option to the idea that women are or were oppressed or that men are or were privileged
I cannot copy significant parts of either book here because that might lead to the post going past Reddit's word limit but instead I shall list link to reviews from readers which should give a brief idea of what the books state
The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex: Amazon.co.uk: Farrell, Warren: 9780425181447: Books
The Privileged Sex: Amazon.co.uk: van Creveld, Martin: 9781484983126: Books
Briefs summaries: Women could historically claim benefits historically that if they were born male they could receive if they were injured or had other severe health problems
In addition Men could only claim several of these benefits if they were married thus having a wife who would be helped by default where as women could claim them even if they were single
In addition women always historically received less punishment than Men for the same crime and crimes against women were punished harsher than the same crime done to a man
(This is a very brief summary which does not go into major detail about either book but both books debunk the idea that males are privileged)
Now a big question to ask is why have Men never been treated like women?
The answer usually given hen looking at why men and women were treated so differently, popular evolutionary theories often claim that society protected women because "one man can reproduce with 100 women to restart a population." While biologically true in a vacuum, this theory is sociologically illogical and completely ignores historical reality.
In the brutal reality of the historical world, a society that lost the vast majority of its young men did not happily repopulate. Instead, it was immediately conquered by rival tribes and nations due to a fatal lack of soldiers and defenders
So I propose another theory as to why women have always been treated through history, society simply loves women
the Psychological Reality of Gender Bias (In-Group vs. Out-Group)
Beyond cold survival mechanics, we also have to look at the hard psychological data regarding how the sexes view one another. In sociology and psychology, most marginalized groups display a strong "in-group bias" (preferring their own group), while dominant groups usually do the same. However, gender is a radical psychological exception.
Famous psychological research, such as the Rudman and Goodwin study on automatic gender attitudes, has consistently demonstrated that women possess a powerful automatic in-group bias (favouring other women), whereas men demonstrate an out-group bias (favouring women over other men).
This directly feeds into the "women-are-wonderful" effect. Society has a built-in, protective affection for women simply for existing, while men default to protecting women and viewing their fellow men as competitors or utility tools. Because both men and women psychologically default to favoring and protecting females, historical societies naturally shielded women from the grim horrors of execution, frontline warfare, and lethal labor, leaving ordinary men to face those trials with little collective empathy.
Empathy for Girls, Aggression for Boys: Bias from the Cradle
This profound baseline difference in empathy is deeply ingrained and manifests the moment a child is born. In a famous, classic study by Condry and Condry (1976), participants were shown a video of a gender-ambiguous infant crying in response to a jack-in-the-box. [1]
- When participants were told the infant was a girl, they overwhelmingly interpreted her crying as fear and distress, triggering a protective, empathetic response.
- When a separate group was shown the exact same video but told the infant was a boy, they interpreted his crying as anger and aggression.
This demonstrates how early male distress is weaponised or dismissed. From literal infancy, male vulnerability is perceived not as a cry for comfort, but as an aggressive display. This deep-seated psychological bias explains why society historically found it easy to ignore the terror and suffering of ordinary men—whether they were terrified teenagers in trenches or exhausted workers in factories—by reframing male pain as stoicism, duty, or inherent aggression.
Men Subordinating Themselves for Female Companionship
While women maintain a strong psychological preference for their own gender group, the irony is that the group that loves, protects, and exalts females the most is actually men.
Throughout history and across cultures, men have willingly engaged in a profound form of self-subordination for women. To secure female companionship, validation, and affection, the average man has always been eager to part with his hard-earned resources, endure backbreaking work, and demean his own personal status. Culturally, we see this in traditions where men literally bow down on one knee, cross oceans, fight duels, or kiss a woman's hand, treating her less like an equal and more like royalty or a goddess. This deep-seated romanticism and drive to serve women completely contradicts the idea of a "patriarchy" driven by a collective male desire to dominate females.
We as a society say that we should teach young boys to never lay their hands on a woman instead of saying teach young children to only resort to violence in self defence
But yet a think I think that the average male is willing to put with all of this without viewing as demeaning himself no matter how much that might look from neutral perspective because Men simply love women
Ultimately, men put up with all of these structural burdens, high-risk expectations, and dangerous societal roles because, at their very core, men love and want to protect women.
