Insights and questions from the Donner party.

Some time ago I posted a recommendation for a PBS TV show about the Donner Party and their ordeal in 1846-7. Reading up on the event I came across an interesting question: Why is it that two-thirds of the men died and two-thirds of the women survived.



Above from:
http://www.utahcrossroads.org/DonnerParty/FAQ.htm#women%20than%20men

It is interesting that familial support and sex roles, expectations of what it meant to be a man, and what it meant to be a man in a situation where your acculturated tendencies are thwarted, played a clear role in what risks were taken and who survived.

What do you think? Were the cultural roles helpful to the group, the individual? Or were they largely counterproductive?

Is there any way to have acculturation and sex roles benefit the group without sacrificing the individual? Are sex roles and expectations still a major consideration?

A question I have long wanted an answer to: why is it that pretty much every behavior that is futile, self-destructive, stupid, self-defeating, and foolish characterized and immediately identified as typically male?

Why is it that Darwin Award winners, across the board and historically, predominately male?

Testosterone?

Men were designed to get up, kill something and drag it back to the cave. We're expendable.

I should probably recuse myself. Up until a year ago I was convinced I had two Y chromosomes.

The women: I think they were right about "Women seem to be better at putting up with things, at accepting the fact that a situation isn’t fixable and trying to make the best of it."
Most women who aren't rich (esp in those days) were used to extreme hardship and making do.

The men: "Having a family was also a factor in men’s survival; all the adult males who survived the entrapment were fathers, and all the bachelors (single men 21 and over) died." It may have been a combination of the focus of surviving for the family, and that focus 'encouraging' them not to go out and do something pointless or dangerous.

Many young men seem to have a kind of knee-jerk reaction to many things, possibly testosterone-related, or maybe just an inability to think things through clearly, or a combination of the two.

Art "... why is it that pretty much every behavior that is futile, self-destructive, stupid, self-defeating, and foolish characterized and immediately identified as typically male?"

Are you familiar with stream-of-consciousness written interior dialogues? I would love to see some accurate ones from some different young men.

Just from what I've seen and heard, so many of them seem to be basically irrational. Not all, however... I'm not trying to be insulting here.

There seems to be two basic types of men/boys: those who can control their thinking and planning, and those who can't seem to think in a straight line.

The first group is what I think of as 'men', and they seem to be the ones who are good businessmen, who can create a military strategy, and draw reasonable conclusions from a set of facts. I've known very young men who fit in this group, so I suspect that age isn't the issue.

The second group is the 'boys', no matter what their age. They seem to be totally unable to follow a rational line of thinking to a reasonable conclusion. It's like their brains are seriously affected with a bad case of electrical static that interferes with adding 2 + 2 to get 4.

The boy gets mad at someone and starts punching holes in the wall and kicking furniture around; the man focuses on a plot for revenge (even though he doesn't necessarily follow through with it -- it's more of a form of keeping control).

I have three good friends of many years who are married to really excellent men. I have known many other men (and my older brother falls into this category) who simply react, with no plan, no focus, no conclusions on how/why something happened.

Put both of these two basic types of males in a survival situation, and everything else being equal, I would bet on which ones would survive: the ones with focus and rational thinking.

Okay, guys, how far off am I?

Sue

p.s. on the Darwin Awards. I believe it was in the second book where the author said that she received many queries as to why almost all the nominees and winners were male. IIRC, the Darwin Awards began as a sociological experiment at a CA university (Stanford?), and Wendy Northcutt took it over with a few other people when it had outlived it's original usefulness. She said that by the time of the second book came out, while there had been thousands of males nominated, only (I think) 14 females had been suggested. I forget what she offered as a possible reason, but that may have been where I first came across the term 'testosterone poisoning'. Or not.

I think it is possible that the men tried to make sure the women and children ate better than they did.

Yet the single men, who presumably would be disinclined to forgo food for women and children unrelated to themselves, suffered 100% mortality.

Women typically have higher body fat reserves and lower metabolic/caloric requirements than men.

I think both culture and biology likely played a role.

Probably not. Until recent times the man in the family ate first and got the best of the supplies, the wife next, then the children in order of decreasing age. This is strictly about survival - if the man died the entire family was doomed, whereas if a child died that's unfortunate but it happens and they move on.

I'm not sure when that changed, i.e. when it wasn't necessary any more. The turning point was probably when population density got high enough that a family that lost the father could count on support from the neighbors. The Donner parties' backgrounds would dictate how they approached the issue.

PS. I got a stiff lecture from some 80-90 year-olds last year on where the phrase "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" came from and how those things worked on isolated mid-western farms before the 1900s.

I would first look at what was physically required for survival. It may be that it was more likely that two (or more) people could do the work needed for that group to survive, but that one person had a hard time doing all the work needed for that one person to survive.

(i.e., you may need to have four hands for a task or especially be in two places at once - hunting and protecting the camp - difficult for bachelors)

There may also have been a subtle prejudice against men who were as old as 21 yet not married - bachelors would not have gotten much assistance from families barely able to survive themselves.

PS. The issue of men or women better at this or that didn't matter. Roles were dictated by the requirements of pregnancy in women, and every division of labor results from that. Gender roles etc were not abstractions to people in that era but supremely important matters of survival. Straying far from the women-at-home men-hunt model tended to win the entire family a Darwin award.

I definitely put a vote down for testosterone.

Until the age of women's lib, there used to be a thing called chivalry. Lifeboats would load "women and children first" then the older men and so on.
It is true that many cultures allowed the men to eat first, there is a good reason for that. The majority of heavy work is done by the male because of our sexual dimorphism. We require larger caloric intakes to compensate for our musculature as well as our increased activity out of doors. Much of womens work revolved around the hearth and homestead, places sheltered and warmer than the unforgiving wilds. It was mostly repetitious and monotonous, but rarely life-threatening to the extent that plowing, hunting, fishing, and fighting off intruders and raiders would be.

"Roles were dictated by the requirements of pregnancy in women, and every division of labor results from that."

You only mentioned half the issue. Men are stronger than women, and strength was usually seen as superiority. Many men outlived three or four wives -- if they didn't die in childbirth, they were worked to death.

In that time period and for centuries before it, women had few options: wife, mistress, maid or [censored]. Why do you think women literally put their lives on the line via being mail-order brides? Why do you think the early-days LDS women put up with multiple wives? Between lack of great physical strength and sociological conditioning, it was a matter of survival, period.

Why do you think women suffering from PMS or menopause were put in insane asylums? I'll bet it was because they had become less useful and it was the easiest way to 'trade them in' on a newer model. Women were chattel, property.

Sue

I do believe there was an overt prejudice against bachelors,
but I have not seen the documentary in years. I seem to
remember, that on the assent, into the mountains, a bachelor
was dumped, i.e. abandoned.
My guess: bachelors were less likely to be the owner of a
wagon.

I kind of agree with Susan on the man-thinker and boy-thinker
analysis. Supplementing a man-thinker would almost always be
a (the) woman thinker so they would be thinking ahead on
political power, ownership, supplies etc.

In one film, I remember a member of the group shooting at
a friendly Indian, who was part of the group. Correct me
if I mis-remembered this.

On the other hand, it does not take deep thinking.
A man, seeing his 4-year old daughter on the verge of starvation,
could easily take advantage of a bachelor.
(My view of human nature, I suppose.)

If this group had recently arrived from a Norse culture, where
skiing and sledding was predominant, I think several of the
party would have skied over the pass and got help, early in
the year. A few bachelors would have been perfect for this.

I never understood their fatal Stay-together and Stay-put
philosophy. They really lacked creativity, and a pro-active
approach.

The male and female definitions of strength are different. Men see activity and ability to lift a heavy weight a few times as strength. Women are more about endurance and even through the maximum weight lifted might not be as great the total amount of weight they lifted is, in the end, greater.

Not uncommon to see a woman with a forty pound kid on a hip and a load of laundry in their other hand. A man who tries it has to go lay down on the couch for the rest of the afternoon.



A considerable time before they got stuck in the snow, when it became clear that they wouldn't have enough food, they sent a couple of men on horseback to bring back more. They showed up not too long after they made camp at what would become Donner Lake.

While they didn't have any skis one of the men made snowshoes and the strongest of the men and women tried to make it across with six day's starvation ration. On that trip they got lost in a snowstorm, people froze to death, and they ate the two indians, Lois and Salvatore, but word got out.

One of the major issues was that people assumed that the group had a normal compliment of oxen to eat. They didn't know that the salt flats and indians had reduced the numbers available. Hard to replace the food on the hoof a full sized oxen represents with what you can haul on a horse. Even counting the horse.

The other thing is that the weather was extraordinarily difficult. The number and intensity of the storms broke records.

A considerable time before they got stuck in the snow, when it became clear that they wouldn't have enough food, they sent a couple of men on horseback to bring back more. They showed up not too long after they made camp at what would become Donner Lake.
Donner Lake, on this side of the pass? So, they did not
accomplish their mission?
I remember Mr Reed, after being expelled, rode his horse
the long way around and got help.

[i]While they didn't have any skis one of the men made snowshoes and the strongest of the men and women tried to make it across with six day's starvation ration. On that trip they got lost in a snowstorm, people froze to death, and they ate the two indians, Lois and Salvatore, but word got out. [/i]
So I did remember correctly about the Indians.
None of this party ever made it all the way to civilization?
Edit: I see "word got out", so they made contact.

One of the major issues was that people assumed that the group had a normal compliment of oxen to eat. They didn't know that the salt flats and indians had reduced the numbers available. Hard to replace the food on the hoof a full sized oxen represents with what you can haul on a horse. Even counting the horse.
The narrator said they had lost cattle to Indians, but I
assumed they had (early on) enough to supply their own
recon party. I never heard of preps, like making snow-shoes
or jerking meat. Did they wait too long, before sending the
recon party?
Are you saying that the locals, near the Pacific Coast,
knew they were stranded, but said "Let them eat cattle".

This casts a whole different light on things.

The other thing is that the weather was extraordinarily difficult. The number and intensity of the storms broke records.
Yes, that was a killer. There is a lesson. It is a big risk
waiting for a spell of good weather, because it might or
might not come.

I have often wondered which came first here: did men have greater burst strength and therefore take the "strength" roles, or did the biological imperatives of pregnancy in women force men into the strength role, with greater burst strength evolving through natural selection?

I was speculating that role assumptions made over *very* long periods - far into pre-history - might have shaped their behavior in ways that run counter to current assumptions.

Hike4Fun - Perhaps a time line will make things clearer. Rereading it I find I misspoke some of the details. Oh well, just goes to show how history is always a recollection of a recollection and humans aren't inerrant. The story has a lot of twists and turns and the various accounts vary in detail so it is, IMHO, pretty easy to lose track.

What was to become known as the Forlorn Hope, the attempt to make it over the summit on snowshoes, was an epic tale unto itself. Both success and tragedy. Early on two of the seventeen turn back.

The best time line I have found. I found it handy to refer back to it while reading various accounts:
http://www.utahcrossroads.org/DonnerParty/Chronology.htm

Another version that adds some details that are less well documented:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_Party_timeline

The home page of the site is a good place to start. So far this is perhaps the best site I have read:
http://www.utahcrossroads.org/DonnerParty/index.html

The "Donner Party Myths and Mysteries in Brief" was very interesting to me because it touches on how historic events grow, mutate, transform as they are retold and how sorting fact from embellishments added to sell newspapers can be difficult:
http://www.utahcrossroads.org/DonnerParty/Briefmyths.htm#Forlorn%20Hope

Archive.org has a few books on the Donner party of which some of these books have details not found in newer books.

There's a great stage performance that I caught in Vegas last year called "Defending the Caveman". While mostly a great comedy, I found the premise of the whole argument made great sense, as did my wife. In fact, I would almost call it revelatory.

There's still a grand biological reason why young men are drafted into war. As I learned from my now college age daughters, it is far easier to mold the mind and will of a young man than it is a young woman. At 18, both my daughters were convinced they knew far more about the world than I could understand. It amazed them how much I learned about the world by the time they were 21!

One conclusion I tend to support for a whole host of reasons is that young men are just plain dumb compared to older married men and young women, and older women are the most intelligent in general. After all, they seem to live the longest, even today. Surely "smarts" must have something to do with this?

Tell a group of experienced thirty year old guys that you want them to charge across a hundred yards of flat sand toward machine guns in bunkers and your going to see a distinct lack of enthusiasm. You might inspire a 17 year old kid with tales of heroism for a noble cause but it rarely works once they are over 25. Rared still if they have any combat experience. It wasn't the grizzled veterans and grognards that came ashore that day.


There was a reason that when planning the D-day invasion of France that the vast majority of troops in the initial waves were young and had never been in combat. They had been trained to the nines and practiced until the actions were automatic. But most of the experience in the initial waves was in the senior NCOs even the officers were mostly inexperienced.

Which raises the question of how they got the senior NCOs to go. Easy, the NCOs are highly motivated to try to keep the young guys alive. They know frontal attacks are meat grinders but they also figure they can make a difference. And, cynically, they know if the kids don't carry the day they will have to. When the landing on Omaha faltered it was the NCOs who got small groups moving. Which is why the waves of inexperienced troops had been salted with more experienced ones.

Young males just aren't very good at contemplating and judging the likely outcome of their actions.

I was there when an older boy rode down a hill while standing on the seat of his bike to impress come girls. After hitting the curb and bouncing off a tree the girls noticed him. Hard to miss the ambulance and blood.

I saw what happened when a young guy lit himself on fire with barbecue lighter fluid. He figured it would look cool, impress the ladies, and go out like it does in the movies. Two weeks in the burn center, months of skin grafts, and a year of physical therapy later he was mostly back to normal.

I agree that generally the females are smarter. Smart enough to let the males think that they are.

Well, that and I think the senior NCOs had enough sense to know that the job had to get done anyways. Mature men with families will fight hardest if they are between their family and the threat, perhaps harder than even well trained young men can. If the senior NCOs had family back home and realized what kind of danger losing the war would mean for their loved ones, you can bet they would fight the hardest, dirtiest, meanest battles using the most brutal and effective methods possible. They say the Japanese fought hardest when we hit Okinawa and really threatened homeland invasion.

Most young men don't think that far forward, though. What you hear from the vets that survived hard battles is they fought mostly for each other. That makes sense too I reckon.

I don't reckon there are too many womenfolk that would willingly go kill other women and children if they were ordered to. Perhaps that is another reason why men are told to do it instead. I am fairly certain most of the boys that dropped bombs on Dresden knew what they were doing. I can't imagine any woman I know being able to face that reality.