Chapter 6 
Genderism
Many discussions about the issues of cooperation vs. competition eventually get around to issues of gender. (We prefer the term genderism to sexism. ÒSexÓ refers to biology and an attention-getting activity; ÒgenderÓ is a better term for the social construct, what weÕre talking about here. We may lapse occasionally into the conventional terminology). 
Competition, itÕs said, is a ÒmanÕs thingÓ, and women are, by nature, more cooperative. So any debate about the relative merits of cooperation and competition is connected to the issue of male vs. female perspectives. This characterization is, in itself, controversial. Debates rage as to, first of all, whether itÕs really true that men are competitive and women cooperative. There are certainly examples of competitive women and cooperative men, or people taking different stances at different times. ThereÕs a range of attitudes in both genders, with considerable overlap. 
Then, even if you agree with the idea of a gender difference, to what do we attribute that difference? Nature vs. nurture; genetics vs. environment? Is a cooperative stance selected for, due to womenÕs role in childbearing, where cooperation between the mother and child, and between caregivers, confers a survival advantage? Or menÕs traditional role as a ÒproviderÓ, where historical scarcity has led to survival advantage for those who take a competitive attitude and are successful at it? Or simply the competition for desirable mates, which can explain these traits in animal evolution? 
In the US, men tend to lean Republican (political Right) and women Democrat (political Left). WeÕve heard the Republicans referred to as the ÒDaddy PartyÓ and the Democrats the ÒMommy PartyÓ. Men are more likely to advocate military measures like war (competitive) and women are more likely to advocate social safety nets (cooperative). 
ThereÕs no denying, also, that historically, most societies have been male-dominated, and practiced sexism towards women. This is an explanation for why competitive attitudes and structures have dominated politics and economics throughout the centuries. 
WeÕve already seen an explanation for the persistence of sexism (as well as racism and other forms of discrimination) in terms of game theory, in the PrisonerÕs Dilemma chapter. Once you have a majority (or dominant) group, and a minority (oppressed) group, it can set up stable patterns. 
Simulations [Hammond 2006] show that if the dominant group agrees to cooperate with other members of the dominant group and not with members of the oppressed group, the dominant group has an advantage that can form a relatively stable pattern. While perpetrators of sexism, racism, etc. try to pin their prejudice on some inherent characteristic like genetics, the simulations show that it is not necessary that the oppressed group have any kind of disadvantageous characteristic. All that it requires is that it be obvious to which a group a given individual belongs. However, the long-term cost of this is that the returns to both groupsÑincluding the dominant groupÑsuffer as a result of the discrimination. 
In the chapter Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, we discuss gender differences in motivation. The stereotype is that competitive activity is a motivating factor for men, while women may be more motivated by communicative and cooperative activity. Competition in economics, war, and sport is often cited as an incentive for motivating extraordinary effort. Teams in these areas are often cooperative amongst themselves, but count on drumming up competitive sprit against outsiders. That may not apply so much for the female perspective as for the male. 
ItÕs also obvious that gender roles in the modern world are evolving. More and more women are entering the workforce. More men are participating in childcare and domestic issues (though perhaps this trend isnÕt accelerating as fast as the former). Social strictures that tend to keep people in their respective gender roles are loosening. This is a good thing. 
Could it be that increased participation of women in the economic and political spheres portends a shift towards cooperation in society? We certainly hope so. 
But that shift wonÕt be automatic. The few women who do make it to top positions in companies and government arenÕt always paragons of cooperation. Women like Margaret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi developed reputations as Òiron ladiesÓ and instigated wars. Of course, Thatcher and Gandhi reached their positions only by surviving a highly competitive, male-dominated process of selection as leaders. If we still have hierarchical, competitive, power-based structures, the gender of the top personnel may be only of limited impact. We diagnose the pathology of this leader-selection process in No Leaders. 
The inequality between men and women in intimate relationships is an age-old, persistent problem. Education in communication and cooperation skills will also help improve personal relations. Makerism will help women to become economically independent, permitting them not to have to enter into arranged marriages, prostitution, or more drastic sexual slavery. A Universal Basic Income is advocated by a number of economists. This would alleviate the inequity that work performed by women in housekeeping and child care, goes uncompensated in the current economy [Shulevitz 2016]. 
Experiments regarding collaboration in business and other problem-solving settings show that gender balance improves success [Hoogedorn 2013]. Other kinds of diversity, such as ethnic diversity, or balance between introverts and extroverts, also have similar effect. Note that in these cases, the diversity is amongst more-or-less equal members of a team, rather than the top leadership. 
We need to take care when relating competition vs. cooperation to men vs. women. This would be wise on a scientific basisÑwe donÕt yet know enough scientifically about the causes and effects of gender differences to be able to say how much of what we observe in todayÕs society is inherent. 
While weÕre trying to discourage excessive competitiveness, that doesnÕt mean we should throw out the positive characteristics associated with masculinity, like courage, initiative, dedication and persistence. We maintain that cooperation and competition need to be in balance, but that the balance is presently skewed way too heavily in favor of competition. So, too, should masculinity and femininity, whatever they are, be in balance; the present balance is skewed way too far in favor of stereotypical masculinity, patriarchy, and sexism. 
Masculinity and femininity are part of individualsÕ strongly-felt identity, and if they feel obligated to embody the stereotypical characteristics of their gender, thatÕs limiting. Men sometimes feel they have to Òact toughÓ at the risk of not being considered masculine enough; women sometimes feel unable to assert themselves for fear of transgressing their stereotypically feminine role. 
Separating these issues would allow both men and women to be able to choose behaviors more appropriate to the situation than their stereotypes would dictate. Reducing genderism would go a long way to helping us all get along.