Here I want to explain a natural account to why men and women have the distinct nature that they have. In particular, why men have been the warriors and women have been the ones who upbring the kids. This is not a social construction, this is a biological construction, a necessary biological construction. Within feminism there is a (undemonstrated, of course, not a surprise with feminism) concept that society is the way it is because of social construction. Now in some cases that is true, having a society in which women are forced to wear mobile tents is a social construction. But not everything is a social construction. What I am really talking about is a husband and wife relationship. The husband is the one who is seen as the strong one and the one who has to work, while the wife stays at home with children. Feminists refer to this as a "patriarchal society", think it is sexist, and want to change its structure. But there is a naturalistic account for it.
Consider two groups of people. One group A has 90 men and 10 women. Another group B has 90 women and 10 men. Let us make some assumptions to make this problem simple: (i) every women ends up having sex (ii) each women gets pregnant and gives birth in nine months (iii) every birth is a boy and girl (iv) the next nine months the men have sex again. Obviously, these are rather big assumptions, especially (iv), that is unrealistic, the one year old babies cannot reproduce yet, but that is unimportant, I want to illustrate an important point so I make it as simple as possible, I can make it more realistic, my argument will still hold, but it will only confuse the reader. What will happen with these two groups after nine months? Group A will have 100 men and 20 women, nine months later it will have, 120 men and 40 women, nine months later it will have, 160 men and 80 women. Group B will have 100 men and 180 women after nine months, next nine months it will have, 280 men and 360 women, nine months later it will have, 640 men and 720 women. So in three generations group A has a total of 240 people, but group B has a total of 1360. Note that both groups started out with 100 people but now group B has over 1000 people in just three generations!
The above calculation is based on a very simple biological fact. Men can impregnate many women. Women cannot. Women need to fine a unique man, but a men can have sex with many women. This is why a population that has many women and few men will prosper over a population that has few women and many men. Therefore, a population with few men and many women is more prosperous (here "prosperous" simply means having an increased chance to survive) than the model with many men and few women.
This means two things. First, it explains why men always think about sex, women are not as much obsessed about sex. Women need a single partner, men need to find multiple women constantly. But this interesting point between male and female nature is unimportant in our discussion. The point which is important is that women are precious, men are expendable. Protecting women is what will lead to a more prosperous species. This is precisely why it is men protecting the women by being the warrior sex than the other way around. Furthermore, one has to remember that women are pregnant for a long time, men can impregnate a woman at any time. Therefore, there needs to be a careful time period of protecting the mother with the child, with men this is clearly not such the case. Therefore, sexual properties of biology itself force men and women to have the nature that they have. As a result the patriarchal structure develops.
There is another very important result we can deduce from the above observation. If there are two species, one is protected and one is not then the non-protected one will have much more variation through natural selection than the protected one through natural selection. Variation occurs within a species when it is naturally selected. The more protected a species is, the slower and weaker the variation would be within the species. The less protected a species is, the faster and stronger the variation would be within the species. If animals were put on an island that was a utopia, it had everything they ever wanted and they never were killed by other animals, then there would be no natural selection within this species whatsoever. But the real world is much more brutal, animals have to struggle to adapt and survive, thus natural selection leads to a more varied species. Now let us return to men and women. Because women are precious they are more protected, thus, natural selection would not lead to much variation within the female population. The men, however, are expendable, they are not so much protected, they go to wars, and so forth, thus, natural selection would lead to much more variation within the male population. Thus, to conclude, there is more variation within men than women.
Whenever we have a population of people we can form a distribution for them. A distribution is just a histograph. The histograph can measure whatever we like. Suppose we want to measure income levels. If we form a histograph for income levels it will tell us how frequently people end up in various income levels. We expect to find a concentration of people in the middle and few people at the extremes. Most people fall somewhere in the middle income level. Now the most important kind of distribution, for anyone who taken a probability and statistics course, is a normal distribution. It depends on two factors, the "mean" and "standard deviation". The "mean" is simply the average of the population that we are dealing with, and the "standard deviation" is a measure of how varied the population is in comparison to the mean.
Let us pick something to measure between men and women. IQ is a terrible way to figure out someone's intelligence but there is a direct correlation between high IQ and good intelligence, so I will use it nonetheless. We will consider the distribution for the IQ of men and women. As with most random samples the distribution will be a normal distribution, so it will depend on the mean (average IQ) and standard deviation (the measure of variation from the mean IQ). Let us begin with a simple assumption about men and women which I think is a fair (and probably correct) assumption to make, that is, the mean IQ for men and women is the same, let us say 100 for that is usually taken as the average value. The mean would be the same, but the deviation would be different. The deviation for men would be larger than women because they are a more varied group as explained above. Therefore, we would have two distribution curves, one for women, one for men, both are centered at the same point (the mean) but the one for men would have a larger deviation. Graphically this means that the distribution for men would be a stretched curve while the one for women would be tightly concentrated at the middle.
If a curve is tightly concentrate at the middle, thin, and tall, like the one for women, it would mean that the extremes of the distribution are incredibly unlikely. That is, it is extremely impropable to find a woman who is a failure at life, and it is extremely impropable to find a woman who is an (to use a German expression) ubermensch (meaning, she is far ahead of the human race in her talents). And we see this in real life. If we have to imagine a person who is a failure at life, the picture that comes to mind is some guy. But at the same if we have to imagine a person who is far ahead of everybody else in the world either in talents or intelligence we also think of a man. Homeless people are almost always men, but Nobel prize winners are almost always men. Women are not varied enough in their distribution to end at the two extremes. Thus, we do not really see homeless women but we do not really see Nobel prize winning women.
Take for instance the Field's Medal, the equivalent of a Nobel prize for mathematics. At the moment about 40 or so people received this high prize for mathematics. None of them women. Consider the Wolf prize in mathematics, also 40 or so people received this award for mathematics, none of them women.
Is this because the Field's Medal, Wolf Prize, Nobel Prize, discriminate against women? No, not at all. Feminists would like us to believe that the Nobel prize purposefully discriminates against women and that is why we have a disproportion. But this has nothing to do with discrimination, this is simply how the world operates.
Feminists say that there is a disproportion to the number of men and women for the Nobel prize because of the "glass ceiling". That is, discrimination and sexism against women that prevents them from raising above the crowd. But, as I been saying many times before, feminists never demonstrate that it is discrimination that keeps them down, they simply state it, and we have to accept this as a fact. I offer a different explanation (not my own explanation, I seen other people use it before) to why there is this disproportion, which is actually a reasoned thought out argument. Again we run into a problem with "equality", here feminists are using "equality" as referring to actual equality between men and women. Since they believe in actual equality between the sexes it follows that if there is a disproportion between men and women it must be because of discrimination. However, the problem with that statement is that the feminists never demonstrated why men and women are actually equal to one another. The distribution between men and women busts so much of the myths the feminists say about discrimination and creates a bigger hole with feminist 'theory'.