Are Men Less Moral Than Women? Studies Show Ethical Standards

Submitted by Mastodon on Thu, 2012-06-21 18:01

Article here. Excerpt:

'One of the most notable risk factors for ethical laxity is one that all of the above offenders share: Being a man. A number of studies demonstrate that men have lower moral standards than women, at least in competitive contexts. For example, men are more likely than women to minimize the consequences of moral misconduct, to adopt ethically questionable tactics in strategic endeavors, and to engage in greater deceit. This pattern is particularly pronounced in arenas in which success has (at least historically) been viewed as a sign of male vigor and competence, and where loss signifies weakness, impotence, or cowardice (e.g., a business negotiation or a chess match). When men must use strategy or cunning to prove or defend their masculinity, they are willing to compromise moral standards to assert dominance.

Shall we blame it on testosterone, the Y chromosome, or other genetic differences? The current evidence doesn't point in that direction. Instead, a recent series of studies by Laura Kray and Michael Haselhuhn suggests that the root of this pattern may be more socio-cultural in nature, as men - at least in American culture - seem motivated to protect and defend their masculinity. These scientists suggest that losing a "battle," particularly in contexts that are highly competitive and historically male oriented, presents a threat to masculine competency. Apparently manhood is relatively fragile and precarious, and when it is challenged, men tend to become more aggressive and defensive. So a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. To ensure victory, men will sacrifice moral standards if doing so means winning.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

These studies were based on negotiation strategies where the man had something to gain. Material benefit is not just a matter of "masculinity," but of benefiting others that may depend on the man. If war is the context, for example, if a man "cheats" but saves your life, you may be willing to forgive him.

It would be interesting to do such studies about, say, revealing the paternity of a child. Women seem more than willing to name the wrong father. Or to lie about not using birth control to trap a man into fatherhood. Of course, these sins are all forgiven by the courts, so who can blame them? They know they can get away with it.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Fri, 2012-06-22 02:47

It seems as though the researchers deliberately constructed the study so as to have men come out looking bad. They may have concocted this weird study protocol in a conversation such as this:

A: How can we support the feminist revolution, the total domination of American society by feminists?
B: Make men look bad and wrong of course.
A: Yes, but we need to make it look convincing, like men really are wrong and bad, not like it's just propaganda.
B: How about a "scientific" study -- people think those are objective.
A: Little do they know...
B: Let's focus on a topic where men in America feel threatened and under siege, perhaps the very essence of their masculinity. Let's challenge what's left of their concept of masculinity, and make them bad and wrong for defending that.
A: So how would we do that?
B: Men are by nature more competitive than women, so we will dream up competitive situations.
A: And we have to make it look like they are immoral for being competitive...
B [interjecting]: Now you're getting the idea.
A: So if men felt like they were losing their very identity, and they engaged in defensive behavior to hold onto what's left of their male identity, wouldn't they compromise their ethics then?
B: Exactly, we use the old Maslow's hierarchy of needs approach.
A: So we make them look bad and wrong for feeling like they are in survival.
B: And the women can look superior because they aren't feeling in survival, because they are sitting pretty these days with all the support they get. So the women look more evolved than the men!
A: I'll be the Obama administration will fund this one...

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by redwoodwriter on Fri, 2012-06-22 03:51

el cid, also, women are more flexible when it comes to mating with a morally questionable man. It pretty much defeats the point of being a morally superior if you're willing to have babies with a mobster in order to benefit from his money.

Both of those studies allow personal bias to influence the decision - lots of confounding variables. For example, women are more likely to be caregivers to the elderly and less likely to get involved in real estate deals.

Here's another alternative - put men and women into a dilemma about shoplifting at a department store.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by dungone on Fri, 2012-06-22 04:07

A lot of women benefit from men's willingness to do what it takes, as it were. Women may not do anything wrong themselves, but they'll gladly share the benefits. A lot of movies reflect this theme, where the woman is "rescued" from the bad guy by the good guy. James Bond does this a lot. One truth in all this is that men are expected to do the dirty work of life, such as killing the enemy or the bad guy--or just cleaning out the sewer.

A lot of this is based on self-reporting. The men may be more honest about what they'd do, while the women may be less honest. Women have a certain image to maintain. I've had that experience with women--their image looks good, but behind the scenes is a different story. If a woman kills a man, she's likely to poison him or hire another man to do it, making it hard to detect. Men usually kill the woman and then kill themselves. In short, women may not be honest about being dishonest.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Fri, 2012-06-22 12:45