As if the emotional, social, cultural and hormonal changes that overtake a man during the midlife transition aren't severe enough, he also has to factor in a biologically-based uphill battle that he has to fight to maintain his place in the world.
Dr.
Simon Baron-Cohen from Cambridge University writes, "The female brain is predominantly hard-wired for empathy; the male brain is predominantly hard-wired for understanding and building systems.
" Natural selection has favored the male for processes like figuring things out and building things.
It has favored women for making and maintaining connections.
It should therefore come as no surprise that the world of commerce and industry has remained, up until now, male-dominated.
After all, we men invented it.
It should also come as no surprise that women have had a more difficult time breaking into the system because these male-dominated organizations can seem to women like a visit to a foreign country.
For the most part, from the time human society became agrarian, men most often made the tools and taught women how to use them.
This has remained true until the end of the Twentieth Century; since then, everything has started to change very rapidly.
Not long ago, humanity entered the post-industrial age.
A number of important factors have contributed to this quantum shift on the leading edge of human endeavor.
First and foremost has been the computer.
This tool, more than any since the flint-tipped spear has changed humanity.
It has allowed for increased efficiency, increased portability, increased information, increased speed, and, perhaps most significantly, increased communications.
All of us can now get more things done faster with less reliance on organizations and infrastructure than ever before.
The major commodity in play in the Twenty-first Century has shifted to knowledge.
What happens during a shift from an industrial society based on an economy of goods and services to a post-industrial society based on an economics of ideas? When happens when the economy of scale shifts to favor an economy based on personal interrelationships? Remarkably quickly, at the leading edge of commerce, the fundamental language of business shifts from invention and organization to networking; from understanding and systematization to empathy.
The change has been spearheaded by the microminiaturization of ever-more-powerful devices that connect us immediately to one another globally and virtually simultaneously.
Commerce now literally takes place instantaneously between individuals: the 'middle men' find themselves squeezed out of the picture.
At the same time, while the language of commerce shifts, we have sufficient numbers of highly-educated women in the workforce who instantly 'get it'.
The knowledge-based economy speaks their language - a language that fewer and fewer highly-placed men find themselves able to comprehend.
Will the cultural coin completely flip, leaving women to run our economies and men out in the cold? No, not completely.
The role of inventor and systematizer will always vital to a digital economy.
However, the page is now turning.
Our inventors and systematizers are beginning to fall into the position of support staff to the economic leaders who can drive and steer this new economy.
We want our technology to become transparent so that the real work can be done without interruption.
With the transparency of the technology goes the transparency of those who create it, produce it, and maintain it.
The more aware we become of the physical differences between men and women, the clearer this scenario emerges.
Here's what Dr.
Jed Diamond has to say about what's happening: Neuroscientists currently believe that interpersonal sensitivity, a conglomerate of aptitudes they call 'executive social skills' or 'social cognition,' resides in the prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain behind the brow.
Someone with a well-functioning prefrontal cortex is aware of the feelings of others, picks up on emotional expressions and body language and is adept at maintaining good social relationships.
Neuroscientist David Skuse believes that women are more likely than men to acquire the genetic endowment for developing these vital social skills.
The reason, he believes, is that a specific gene or cluster of genes on the X chromosome influences the formation of the prefrontal cortex.
He found that this gene or gene cluster is silenced in 100 percent of men but active in about 50 percent of women.
Hence, about half of all women - and no men - have the brain architecture to excel at the nuances of social interplay.
This doesn't mean that the other 50 percent of women and all men can't learn these skills.
It just means that we have to work harder at them.
Marcus Buckingham (in Now Discover Your Strengths) popularized the idea of 'neural Darwinism': that genetics and early learning work together with the result that every individual possesses a unique set of neural highways that directly relate to physical, mental, and emotional strengths.
Energy directed toward the development of these strengths leads to rapid and exceptional advancement in these areas.
Energy directed away from these neural highways very often amounts to 'damage control' and elevating our skill levels from poor to satisfactory at best.
These non-strength areas will never be great.
Now, apply these principles to the 'talent' of interpersonal sensitivity, and you'll quickly understand why women will always lead in these roles .
.
.
and men won't.
And, here's the last point: as Michael Gerber demonstrated in The e-Myth, entrepreneurial expertise consists of an entirely different skill set from technical expertise.
He pointed out that the technical artisan's skills focus on production, management skills focus on operations, while (according to him) entrepreneurial skills focus on invention and systematization.
We're going to need to take issue with that approach from now on, however.
He's defined entrepreneurial leadership in purely masculine terms that once fit the socio-economic climate of the last century.
Even now, Gerber's latest innovation, "The Dreaming Room" emphasizes imagination and innovation.
The future of entrepreneurial leadership, on the other hand, lies in interconnections.
We shouldn't imagine that men's assuming of a support role in our socio-economic development will be a bad thing.
Women have been serving in that capacity for untold generations.
It may take us a little while to become accustomed to our role reversals, but contemporary society has many, many tools at its disposal to help it along.
Men only need to learn deeper self-awareness and how to communicate that with others in order to survive in Twenty-first century society.
It's not impossible: we've learned to accomplish greater things; only perhaps not nearly so frightening.
The hard part comes with men's needing to re-define masculinity, competency, and self-esteem.
Our world is evidently heading into midlife, when all the basic assumptions come up for review and reformation.
Our male brains don't set us up to fail: we have a vital role to play.
If we fail as men, it can only be if we refuse to embrace the emotional, social, cultural, and spiritual changes that are already upon us.
Dr.
Simon Baron-Cohen from Cambridge University writes, "The female brain is predominantly hard-wired for empathy; the male brain is predominantly hard-wired for understanding and building systems.
" Natural selection has favored the male for processes like figuring things out and building things.
It has favored women for making and maintaining connections.
It should therefore come as no surprise that the world of commerce and industry has remained, up until now, male-dominated.
After all, we men invented it.
It should also come as no surprise that women have had a more difficult time breaking into the system because these male-dominated organizations can seem to women like a visit to a foreign country.
For the most part, from the time human society became agrarian, men most often made the tools and taught women how to use them.
This has remained true until the end of the Twentieth Century; since then, everything has started to change very rapidly.
Not long ago, humanity entered the post-industrial age.
A number of important factors have contributed to this quantum shift on the leading edge of human endeavor.
First and foremost has been the computer.
This tool, more than any since the flint-tipped spear has changed humanity.
It has allowed for increased efficiency, increased portability, increased information, increased speed, and, perhaps most significantly, increased communications.
All of us can now get more things done faster with less reliance on organizations and infrastructure than ever before.
The major commodity in play in the Twenty-first Century has shifted to knowledge.
What happens during a shift from an industrial society based on an economy of goods and services to a post-industrial society based on an economics of ideas? When happens when the economy of scale shifts to favor an economy based on personal interrelationships? Remarkably quickly, at the leading edge of commerce, the fundamental language of business shifts from invention and organization to networking; from understanding and systematization to empathy.
The change has been spearheaded by the microminiaturization of ever-more-powerful devices that connect us immediately to one another globally and virtually simultaneously.
Commerce now literally takes place instantaneously between individuals: the 'middle men' find themselves squeezed out of the picture.
At the same time, while the language of commerce shifts, we have sufficient numbers of highly-educated women in the workforce who instantly 'get it'.
The knowledge-based economy speaks their language - a language that fewer and fewer highly-placed men find themselves able to comprehend.
Will the cultural coin completely flip, leaving women to run our economies and men out in the cold? No, not completely.
The role of inventor and systematizer will always vital to a digital economy.
However, the page is now turning.
Our inventors and systematizers are beginning to fall into the position of support staff to the economic leaders who can drive and steer this new economy.
We want our technology to become transparent so that the real work can be done without interruption.
With the transparency of the technology goes the transparency of those who create it, produce it, and maintain it.
The more aware we become of the physical differences between men and women, the clearer this scenario emerges.
Here's what Dr.
Jed Diamond has to say about what's happening: Neuroscientists currently believe that interpersonal sensitivity, a conglomerate of aptitudes they call 'executive social skills' or 'social cognition,' resides in the prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain behind the brow.
Someone with a well-functioning prefrontal cortex is aware of the feelings of others, picks up on emotional expressions and body language and is adept at maintaining good social relationships.
Neuroscientist David Skuse believes that women are more likely than men to acquire the genetic endowment for developing these vital social skills.
The reason, he believes, is that a specific gene or cluster of genes on the X chromosome influences the formation of the prefrontal cortex.
He found that this gene or gene cluster is silenced in 100 percent of men but active in about 50 percent of women.
Hence, about half of all women - and no men - have the brain architecture to excel at the nuances of social interplay.
This doesn't mean that the other 50 percent of women and all men can't learn these skills.
It just means that we have to work harder at them.
Marcus Buckingham (in Now Discover Your Strengths) popularized the idea of 'neural Darwinism': that genetics and early learning work together with the result that every individual possesses a unique set of neural highways that directly relate to physical, mental, and emotional strengths.
Energy directed toward the development of these strengths leads to rapid and exceptional advancement in these areas.
Energy directed away from these neural highways very often amounts to 'damage control' and elevating our skill levels from poor to satisfactory at best.
These non-strength areas will never be great.
Now, apply these principles to the 'talent' of interpersonal sensitivity, and you'll quickly understand why women will always lead in these roles .
.
.
and men won't.
And, here's the last point: as Michael Gerber demonstrated in The e-Myth, entrepreneurial expertise consists of an entirely different skill set from technical expertise.
He pointed out that the technical artisan's skills focus on production, management skills focus on operations, while (according to him) entrepreneurial skills focus on invention and systematization.
We're going to need to take issue with that approach from now on, however.
He's defined entrepreneurial leadership in purely masculine terms that once fit the socio-economic climate of the last century.
Even now, Gerber's latest innovation, "The Dreaming Room" emphasizes imagination and innovation.
The future of entrepreneurial leadership, on the other hand, lies in interconnections.
We shouldn't imagine that men's assuming of a support role in our socio-economic development will be a bad thing.
Women have been serving in that capacity for untold generations.
It may take us a little while to become accustomed to our role reversals, but contemporary society has many, many tools at its disposal to help it along.
Men only need to learn deeper self-awareness and how to communicate that with others in order to survive in Twenty-first century society.
It's not impossible: we've learned to accomplish greater things; only perhaps not nearly so frightening.
The hard part comes with men's needing to re-define masculinity, competency, and self-esteem.
Our world is evidently heading into midlife, when all the basic assumptions come up for review and reformation.
Our male brains don't set us up to fail: we have a vital role to play.
If we fail as men, it can only be if we refuse to embrace the emotional, social, cultural, and spiritual changes that are already upon us.
SHARE
