Excellent and thought provoking paper about an evolutionary artefact that is, I suspect, not widely known, but has wide ramifications on a range of human behaviours with social impacts. Well done 👏👏👏
Great evolutionary summary. The just-so story on differential gene expression in behavior coincides with what I was thinking lately about why the feminization of institutions is so destructive. Same for publishing - the editorial teams in, say, Nature are almost completely "diverse" (run by women), and uh-oh, the nonsense they promote for publishing and the sense they decide not to publish.
There was an interesting podcast by Razib Khan with Gregory Cochran, which was a third podcast on the first reference in your list - the Akbari paper. I browsed through Cochran’s books in the past but haven't read them throughout, just because what he was writing 15 years ago was common sense since early Darwin - though it became uncommon sense and even forbidden to think about in academia over the last 8 decades or so. I caught myself congratulating Reich and the authors on this achievement and bucking the academic taboos.
Cochran put a more honest light on it: their results, while providing bulletproof molecular and statistical evidence, should not have surprised anyone. I guess, starting with in-depth knowledge of population genetics, I cared only for the additional molecular evidence. Similarly, why I wasn’t that excited by Cochran’s writing - thinking: but of course!
Anyway, he mentions pure-blooded Australian Aboriginals in a way that no one in Australia would dare to state without losing their place among the smart and good.
As usual a lot to agree with here as well as enjoying the insights. What did surprise me was the citing of 'Pursuit of Jade'. As an amateur film buff, I was congratulating myself on being the only person of my acquaintance who had seen it, supposing myself ofc to be an adventurous and discerning avant-garde cinematic sophisticate who had serendipitously discovered a hidden gem targeted at, and hitherto appreciated primarily by, Asian females. As such, I was happily analysing why I enjoyed it so much: a modern 'Gone with the Wind' presenting traditional Chinese shadow theatre themes in the Disney style, slowly evolving from Mills & Boon fantasy into the Scottish play on ice, topped off with an utterly up-to-date multiversal ending. Bump!
I'm temperamentally open to this, but there needs to be more evidence - not merely just-so stories about 'this bad thing happened at the same time as lots of other things happened including women joining the workforce'. What you (not implausibly) call feminization overlaps with what I'd call managerialism, which is something men can also do now we have the tools of control handy, and I'd need to hear at least an outline of how we'd test which explanation, if either, is true. Otherwise it's a catch-all like 'white supremacy'. I had various family members who worked on the factory floor, as pen-pushers for large corporations, and in the army.. it's a shame those men aren't around to tell me about that golden age of free speech and nonconformism circa 1910-1950..
Team work is not automatically good. Nazis and Mongols were good at teamwork. But it does make for more functional institutions.
Free speech is always a contested matter, but there are clearly periods of advance and retreat. One can have more social conformity in some realms and yet more intellectual and political freedom in others.
It is conspicuous that, since the Pill enabled more women to aspire to professional and managerial jobs, we have had two waves of attacks on free speech: the political correctness wave, which was largely beaten back, and then the more virulent “inclusive/cancel culture” wave.
Entirely agree that managerialism/bureaucratisation and progressivism are factors, but both are deeply intertwined with feminisation.
As is our self defeating failure to reproduce which must subconsciously scar women more deeply than is imaginable, which I’d suggest forces some female conduct to extremes : the desire to micro manage phantom children via eg limits on speech and the desire towards chaos via support for ever greater diversity and borders open to often dangerous men.
Mothers are well represented if not over represented in the anti free speech, “smothering mother” ranks. Having actual children doesn’t prevent women from infantilising other adults, in fact it enables them to learn and double down on only one mode of behaviour.
The Pill gave women freedom from constant pregnancy and economic dependence on men. No wonder so many guys feel cheated, a job (or simply existing as a male) doesn't automatically guarantee them a maid/incubator/bedpet like in the old days!
There has certainly been a shift in relative bargaining power. This had been going on for some time due but was definitely accelerated by the Pill, whose main effects seem to be massive increase in women in higher education and a drop in church attendance—the signal of pregnancy = marriage was far less needed.
You clearly never met any women who lived in that age. I knew a female CEO of an insurance company, female doctors, female journalists and others. You probably also believe the lie that women could not own property in the US, or that women could not women could not own credit cards.
I am in favor of equal rights, but the promotion of lies regarding the position of women in American society in the 1950's and earlier suggests to me that those who hold radical positions know how unpopular they are with almost everybody.
You couldn’t have demonstrated the influence of feminisation on discussions of intellectual inquiry and knowledge acquisition better.
It is exactly that, emotive interjection, that creates distraction and diversions from the subject matter at hand. Ultimately, when permitted to become a feature of such intellectual inquiry, it becomes a stifling restriction on the growth of human technical knowledge and capacity.
It is arguable whether women are no longer dependent on men - (I forget who) argues that women simply exchanged dependency onto the state. But this comes with a major difference - due to being dependent *personally* they were previously forced to symbiotically get along to receive the fruits of that dependence.
With the state replacing an individual man women are no longer restrained into getting along cooperatively but can act destructively while still receiving the resources they depend upon. IE they can not hold up their end of the bargain but still are guaranteed their needs will be met.
Both Nazis and Mongols were hideously bad at team work. Even at the height of WW2, the majority of German armaments were being produced by private for-profit companies. As for the mongols, see Genghis Khan's original story ffs
Mongols and Nazis were great at teamwork. That is what made them such efficient warriors/soldiers.
To be sure, Genghis Khan massively restructured Mongol society to make its internal operations more effective at producing and coordinating teams, but he and his immediate successors created the largest contiguous land empire in history precisely because their teams, and the coordination of their teams, really worked.
The vast majority of Anglo-American armaments were being produced by private-for-profit companies. The US first, and the British Empire second, outproduced everyone else. A successful company is an exercise in successful coordination of team work.
Both the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS produced really effective military teams. There were major issues with the Nazi economy, but that is a different matter (e.g. slaves are not a great basis for good team work, though slave work gangs can be productive in the right circumstances).
The shirt that was heard around the world... I'm almost old enough to be scandalized by this kind of shirt for purely ‘how dare he not wear a tie’ reasons. The ‘Big Bang Theory' guys, by recycling 70s sexual revolution and 90s lad culture (both were intended to annoy people like me), managed also to offend a later generation who, even if they aren't mad and woke, look at that shirt and think ‘Jimmy Savile’ or ‘Rolf Harris’. Feminists should of course have noticed that this was harmless over-compensation by people who have a far more diffident attitude towards sexual relations, but that's not how one gets clicks.
I was watching a Western commentator being interviewed on Ukrainian TV and was offended that he was just wearing a t-shirt, even if it was a pro-Ukrainian one. So I hear you about the loss of appropriate formality.
Besides getting clicks, tolerant nuance is also not how one gets social leverage. There are many problems with feminism, but one of its biggest problems is the tendency to differentially valorise the sexes. So much of the shift to greater opportunities and legal standing for women has come from shifts in relative bargaining power but that, and that all legal advances for women were voted for by men, rather gets in the way of telling a heroic feminist story.
Two world wars. Lots of good men taken out of the equation.
Your cliche beta male, often chastised by his more dominant sex-fellows, form alliances or 'Allyship' with now emancipated female peers.
A self reinforcing pact - new men / beta men / managerial men / gay men / diversity men raise up their female peers, who return the favour down the line.
There can be little doubt about the feminisation in public institutions, schools & colleges, board rooms - the question is what made the tipping point?
At some point there was a loss of faith in men. War. Feminism. Feminism as a cudgel instrument wielded by beta men. Neo-marxist themes. The gen x onwards children inculcated into a now female lens world at school and in the home.
Maybe now that women can get an education equal to that of a man, women are taking those advanced positions because they're simply more qualified - now that there's competition for these jobs, women are winning them. You know, like how baseball didn't allow Black players in the major leagues for a long time, but once they did, the White players had competition and the African Americans showed they were just as good as Whites. Sometimes even better!
There has also been a fair bit of “thumbs on the scales” in employment. Also, feminised schooling seems to handle boys less well, even beyond “sit still conscientiousness-favoured” schooling probably inherently favours girls.
That first sentence is funny. It's way to general and seriously doubtful. Women are "taking those advanced positions" and "winning them" because of something besides being more qualified, in general. The comparison to blacks and baseball is not even close to being the same. Change the statement to specifics and maybe we would see a pattern other than an effort toward equity goals.
I usually bring up your point that a lot of good, brave, gutsy men died in 20th century and the rapid rise and domination of weak/loser people's ideologies; marxism and nobel savage worshipping and all of their filthy tentacles outbred the alpha male type. The population explosion (due to better health) and mass migration of the third world simply killed any chance of western societies organically and out of necessity reproducing tougher men (and people). It's been mangled too much in too short of a time.
Wars have generated large death tolls in the past, but in the Anglo world the World War deaths were notably skewed, as far fewer civilian deaths than in other relatively large death-tolls-to-population wars.
"Until the invention of the stirrup, women probably enjoyed an advantage over men when it came to horsemanship. It is notable that a pastoralist civilisation (the Mongols) remedied this disadvantage." Am I understanding the issue here is that before stirrups, women's ability to relate to horses emotionally allowed them to be the better riders and get more from those animals compared to men? Men would treat their horses in a more utilitarian fashion? While once the stirrup came into being, then men could control the horses without as much (if any) emotional involvement. And male strength coupled with that enhanced control then favored male horsemanship, especially in warfare?
How would the invention of a bit/brace or other mouth control have played into this? Or just "head" control?
My neighbor is a knowledgeable and reasonably accomplished horsewoman, with a strong bond or attachment to her horse(s)* [but even she did have a severe riding accident some time back]. She says she can control her horse via knee pressure and gentle heel guidance (with or without spurs?), even to the point it can overcome the ability of someone grabbing the reins and trying to control her horse** that way [but she is also using stirrups in this situation, I believe].
*they had 4 but lost 2, in spite of dedicated care and adequate financial resources.
** my query was in regard to why the Canadian truck convoy protesters could not minimize the ability of the CRMP's to control those crowds by grabbing reins and using the bit to guide the horse elsewhere than where the rider wanted. [Not necessarily a wise move for other reasons, but an option?? ]
Think about male anatomy. Think about what gets squished if, for example, you have to spend all your time doing some version of a seated trot because lifting in the saddle is harder without stirrups.
Saddles (invented by the Scythians/Sarmatians, nomadic-pastoralist peoples notable for female warriors) were the real historical game changer. This dramatically increased the comfort of both horses (they get sore, too) and riders (a horse with high withers is uncomfortable for everyone!) and solved the problem of horse’s body heat against sensitive male anatomy. The stirrup’s main advantage (not realized by the mongols) was in providing added stability for weapons use. But riders today, male and female, are trained to trot (sit and post), canter, and even jump without their stirrups, and this is tested in certain competitions because over-reliance on the stirrup is dangerous. If riding without stirrups was truly hazardous to male anatomy, ancient cavalries would have been filled with eunuchs.
I would love to see an analysis on the differences in how male monasteries and female nunneries had to be managed to account for these differences in behavioural tendencies.
The Tempest and Julius Ceaser, and perhaps Richard the 3rd are my favorites, but I have never seen/read Hamlet. Some I actively dislike (Romeo and Juliet was bad).
I seriously doubt that they are online. Harvard University press published an English translation of Philippe Ariès’ History of Private Life, that, while hilariously obtuse in terms of understanding them, does quote extensively from primary sources.
Volume two, if I recall, had a survey of the differences between the “rules” of monastic houses for women versus men, but it has been a very long time, I may be misremembering. I do recall this was an actual controversy at a couple points in history. Forth century and again in the eight or ninth, maybe.
The primary chronicles of the Medieval Era are written by Monks and Nuns, about Monks and Nuns, but they are rarely published or translated, because almost no one cares. “First Monday of Easter, the 1147th year of the Lord’s grace;
The chickens got out again and the Abbot dispensed us from Prime while the brothers chased and collected them. Brother Tim is to mend the fence. Two new pilgrims arrived on their way to Rome. The kitchen provided them with with meat, cheese and bread, sufficient to carry them to (another Abbey). Brother Bob has gout. Brother….”
This is why I drive a 6 speed manual sports car. The wife doesnt understand, it is raw emotion matching the rhythm of the road, slamming i to the next gear at 9000rpm and daring myself not to life until the last moment…… it is exhilarating.
Indeed! But the motorcycle can’t relate emotionally to us.
Perhaps that’s why science fiction (and actual research) pertaining to robots or artificial intelligence have been overwhelmingly the domain of men. A desire to make sentient a bilateral emotional relationship with the inanimate?
Bravo! Fascinating piece I will be thinking about for a long time! Love the Orwell thought -- he NOTICED. Something we all should teach ourselves to do better if we truly want to improve humankind's lot on this planet, which is not too bad right now. I find your writings so interesting and thoughtful. Please keep it up!
Interesting article—thanks for the dive into the genetic substrate that often gets ignored. I wanted to add a few connected observations that have been rattling around my head, partly triggered by your piece.
On teamwork, the male–female difference you hint at feels plausible, though I'd frame it a bit differently. My pet theory is that men are far more heterogeneous in relevant traits (risk tolerance, competitiveness, communication style, etc.), and that variance itself makes for better teams—you get a wider spread of complementary skills. The evolutionary backdrop fits: men disproportionately did the hunting, which is a coordinated, role-differentiated team activity, while women's gathering was more individual, though it did select for detailed environmental knowledge and information-sharing. That might be why women have, on average, stronger verbal and language skills—gathering is fundamentally an information-acquisition task. But I'd caution that we don't yet have rigorous systematic studies on teamwork capacity by gender. The famous football-match anecdote is just that, an event, not a longitudinal study.
Shifting to the cultural production angle you touched on: the takeover of publishing by women (as editors, agents, and authors) seems largely driven by romance and its voracious, repeat-reading audience. Publishers learned that women will reliably consume formulaic genre fiction year after year, which built a stable economic base and gradually feminized the industry. Meanwhile, despite a solid decade of activism, men still dominate comics and video games—both the creator side and the consumer side. Activism can shift surface norms (and it's a real positive that the worst harassment has been driven down), but it can't overwrite deep-seated preferences.
And here's the thing—barriers to entry in books and comics are now laughably low. Anyone can upload a novel to KDP or Draft2Digital, post a webcomic on Tapas or Webtoon, build an audience on social media, crowdfund a graphic novel. Distribution is global, gatekeepers are optional. If male authors or artists can produce stories that grab attention—including from other men—they'll find readers. I'm not worried about their ability to compete. The economic moat that romance built for traditional publishing doesn't block direct-to-reader pathways.
Great article! The first inkling I saw of this manifestation you’ve described was in the visceral cult film “Fight Club”. Both the downsides of feminism and the upsides of masculinity and vice-versa were on display. It is interesting to have seen the pendulum swing from male chauvinism to female woke in the course of my life and to realize that the happy balance of both has always been a work in progress.
My wife is a very gentle soul, and one of the things I noticed about her when we first met was that she has a wide circle of female friends dating back many decades. Everybody loves her, even other women!
The reason I noticed this is because all, and I do mean all, of the women I've been involved with previously had few actual close female friends, and even when they did they were prone to sudden bitter ruptures, squabbles, niggling, back-stabbing etc. I could never understand it, so the point you make in the essay about this aspect of inter-female relationship dynamics immediately rang a huge bell with me.
Thank you for a very interesting and thoughtful provoking piece of work.
Women have been trained for ages to see other women as competition for men - and therefore, as competition for economic security, a place to live, and a roof over their heads. A man liking you more than the other women around you could potentially mean the difference between a decent life and the poor house. Thankfully because of things like the Pill, higher education, and improved career opportunities, women no longer need men to support them economically. But that early, longstanding socialization will take a long time to fully resolve.
Thank you for a clear and thought-provoking piece. It introduced me to a perspective I hadn’t fully considered before, and also helped organise some of my existing intuitions into a more coherent framework.
One small anecdote that stood out for me: the image referenced in the article had already appeared in my wife’s social media feed, but not in mine. I wouldn’t even have been aware of it if not for this write-up. That probably says something interesting about how algorithms sort content based on demographics and preferences.
Really enjoyed that, a really diverse range of relatable bits of information, without going too far into "one true answer" territory.
The framing of genes and historical selection pressure as the substrate is helpful - demonstrates why there can be major differences on the surface that nevertheless have a common root cause.
It also doesn't mean any of these things are good or bad per say, but different traits and tendancies are more effective in different situations
This then gets into who gets valorised by whom. If the IDF are seen as more technologically capable, Hamas may seem more heroic, even without political complications. Also, there is a noted political imbalance in mental health, which may also be a factor.
The IDF follows standard military procedure. They never target civilians, never rape, never engaged in pointless acts of hatred.
Hamas are literally the most violent thugs in the world. They are far worse than other terrorist groups. They rape children, ONLY target civilians while running away from soldiers.
By any reasonable definition, Hamas are violent beyond belief. The IDF is simply a military. Almost all of the hate directed at it is made up. If anything, sympathy for Hamas is a very good proxy for someone being strongly turned on by violence against women and children.
Of course there are the idiots who get tricked by watching mindless video clips and reading propaganda, but anyone with the basic ability to do research can easily determine that the IDF is a professional army, while Hamas are thuggish terrorists. Hamas killed more Palestinians that the IDF did, but Hamas has better-funded propagandists along with Chinese and Russian intelligence agencies trying to promote anti-Semitism in the West in order to further destabilize the democratic countries.
Excellent and thought provoking paper about an evolutionary artefact that is, I suspect, not widely known, but has wide ramifications on a range of human behaviours with social impacts. Well done 👏👏👏
Great evolutionary summary. The just-so story on differential gene expression in behavior coincides with what I was thinking lately about why the feminization of institutions is so destructive. Same for publishing - the editorial teams in, say, Nature are almost completely "diverse" (run by women), and uh-oh, the nonsense they promote for publishing and the sense they decide not to publish.
There was an interesting podcast by Razib Khan with Gregory Cochran, which was a third podcast on the first reference in your list - the Akbari paper. I browsed through Cochran’s books in the past but haven't read them throughout, just because what he was writing 15 years ago was common sense since early Darwin - though it became uncommon sense and even forbidden to think about in academia over the last 8 decades or so. I caught myself congratulating Reich and the authors on this achievement and bucking the academic taboos.
Cochran put a more honest light on it: their results, while providing bulletproof molecular and statistical evidence, should not have surprised anyone. I guess, starting with in-depth knowledge of population genetics, I cared only for the additional molecular evidence. Similarly, why I wasn’t that excited by Cochran’s writing - thinking: but of course!
Anyway, he mentions pure-blooded Australian Aboriginals in a way that no one in Australia would dare to state without losing their place among the smart and good.
https://www.razibkhan.com/p/gregory-cochran-15-years-after-the
As usual a lot to agree with here as well as enjoying the insights. What did surprise me was the citing of 'Pursuit of Jade'. As an amateur film buff, I was congratulating myself on being the only person of my acquaintance who had seen it, supposing myself ofc to be an adventurous and discerning avant-garde cinematic sophisticate who had serendipitously discovered a hidden gem targeted at, and hitherto appreciated primarily by, Asian females. As such, I was happily analysing why I enjoyed it so much: a modern 'Gone with the Wind' presenting traditional Chinese shadow theatre themes in the Disney style, slowly evolving from Mills & Boon fantasy into the Scottish play on ice, topped off with an utterly up-to-date multiversal ending. Bump!
I'm temperamentally open to this, but there needs to be more evidence - not merely just-so stories about 'this bad thing happened at the same time as lots of other things happened including women joining the workforce'. What you (not implausibly) call feminization overlaps with what I'd call managerialism, which is something men can also do now we have the tools of control handy, and I'd need to hear at least an outline of how we'd test which explanation, if either, is true. Otherwise it's a catch-all like 'white supremacy'. I had various family members who worked on the factory floor, as pen-pushers for large corporations, and in the army.. it's a shame those men aren't around to tell me about that golden age of free speech and nonconformism circa 1910-1950..
Team work is not automatically good. Nazis and Mongols were good at teamwork. But it does make for more functional institutions.
Free speech is always a contested matter, but there are clearly periods of advance and retreat. One can have more social conformity in some realms and yet more intellectual and political freedom in others.
It is conspicuous that, since the Pill enabled more women to aspire to professional and managerial jobs, we have had two waves of attacks on free speech: the political correctness wave, which was largely beaten back, and then the more virulent “inclusive/cancel culture” wave.
Entirely agree that managerialism/bureaucratisation and progressivism are factors, but both are deeply intertwined with feminisation.
As is our self defeating failure to reproduce which must subconsciously scar women more deeply than is imaginable, which I’d suggest forces some female conduct to extremes : the desire to micro manage phantom children via eg limits on speech and the desire towards chaos via support for ever greater diversity and borders open to often dangerous men.
Mothers are well represented if not over represented in the anti free speech, “smothering mother” ranks. Having actual children doesn’t prevent women from infantilising other adults, in fact it enables them to learn and double down on only one mode of behaviour.
The Pill gave women freedom from constant pregnancy and economic dependence on men. No wonder so many guys feel cheated, a job (or simply existing as a male) doesn't automatically guarantee them a maid/incubator/bedpet like in the old days!
There has certainly been a shift in relative bargaining power. This had been going on for some time due but was definitely accelerated by the Pill, whose main effects seem to be massive increase in women in higher education and a drop in church attendance—the signal of pregnancy = marriage was far less needed.
You clearly never met any women who lived in that age. I knew a female CEO of an insurance company, female doctors, female journalists and others. You probably also believe the lie that women could not own property in the US, or that women could not women could not own credit cards.
I am in favor of equal rights, but the promotion of lies regarding the position of women in American society in the 1950's and earlier suggests to me that those who hold radical positions know how unpopular they are with almost everybody.
You couldn’t have demonstrated the influence of feminisation on discussions of intellectual inquiry and knowledge acquisition better.
It is exactly that, emotive interjection, that creates distraction and diversions from the subject matter at hand. Ultimately, when permitted to become a feature of such intellectual inquiry, it becomes a stifling restriction on the growth of human technical knowledge and capacity.
It is arguable whether women are no longer dependent on men - (I forget who) argues that women simply exchanged dependency onto the state. But this comes with a major difference - due to being dependent *personally* they were previously forced to symbiotically get along to receive the fruits of that dependence.
With the state replacing an individual man women are no longer restrained into getting along cooperatively but can act destructively while still receiving the resources they depend upon. IE they can not hold up their end of the bargain but still are guaranteed their needs will be met.
Both Nazis and Mongols were hideously bad at team work. Even at the height of WW2, the majority of German armaments were being produced by private for-profit companies. As for the mongols, see Genghis Khan's original story ffs
Mongols and Nazis were great at teamwork. That is what made them such efficient warriors/soldiers.
To be sure, Genghis Khan massively restructured Mongol society to make its internal operations more effective at producing and coordinating teams, but he and his immediate successors created the largest contiguous land empire in history precisely because their teams, and the coordination of their teams, really worked.
The vast majority of Anglo-American armaments were being produced by private-for-profit companies. The US first, and the British Empire second, outproduced everyone else. A successful company is an exercise in successful coordination of team work.
Both the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS produced really effective military teams. There were major issues with the Nazi economy, but that is a different matter (e.g. slaves are not a great basis for good team work, though slave work gangs can be productive in the right circumstances).
This seems to have been a key moment.
https://time.com/3589392/comet-shirt-storm/
The shirt that was heard around the world... I'm almost old enough to be scandalized by this kind of shirt for purely ‘how dare he not wear a tie’ reasons. The ‘Big Bang Theory' guys, by recycling 70s sexual revolution and 90s lad culture (both were intended to annoy people like me), managed also to offend a later generation who, even if they aren't mad and woke, look at that shirt and think ‘Jimmy Savile’ or ‘Rolf Harris’. Feminists should of course have noticed that this was harmless over-compensation by people who have a far more diffident attitude towards sexual relations, but that's not how one gets clicks.
I was watching a Western commentator being interviewed on Ukrainian TV and was offended that he was just wearing a t-shirt, even if it was a pro-Ukrainian one. So I hear you about the loss of appropriate formality.
Besides getting clicks, tolerant nuance is also not how one gets social leverage. There are many problems with feminism, but one of its biggest problems is the tendency to differentially valorise the sexes. So much of the shift to greater opportunities and legal standing for women has come from shifts in relative bargaining power but that, and that all legal advances for women were voted for by men, rather gets in the way of telling a heroic feminist story.
Something else.
Two world wars. Lots of good men taken out of the equation.
Your cliche beta male, often chastised by his more dominant sex-fellows, form alliances or 'Allyship' with now emancipated female peers.
A self reinforcing pact - new men / beta men / managerial men / gay men / diversity men raise up their female peers, who return the favour down the line.
There can be little doubt about the feminisation in public institutions, schools & colleges, board rooms - the question is what made the tipping point?
At some point there was a loss of faith in men. War. Feminism. Feminism as a cudgel instrument wielded by beta men. Neo-marxist themes. The gen x onwards children inculcated into a now female lens world at school and in the home.
Maybe now that women can get an education equal to that of a man, women are taking those advanced positions because they're simply more qualified - now that there's competition for these jobs, women are winning them. You know, like how baseball didn't allow Black players in the major leagues for a long time, but once they did, the White players had competition and the African Americans showed they were just as good as Whites. Sometimes even better!
There has also been a fair bit of “thumbs on the scales” in employment. Also, feminised schooling seems to handle boys less well, even beyond “sit still conscientiousness-favoured” schooling probably inherently favours girls.
That first sentence is funny. It's way to general and seriously doubtful. Women are "taking those advanced positions" and "winning them" because of something besides being more qualified, in general. The comparison to blacks and baseball is not even close to being the same. Change the statement to specifics and maybe we would see a pattern other than an effort toward equity goals.
I usually bring up your point that a lot of good, brave, gutsy men died in 20th century and the rapid rise and domination of weak/loser people's ideologies; marxism and nobel savage worshipping and all of their filthy tentacles outbred the alpha male type. The population explosion (due to better health) and mass migration of the third world simply killed any chance of western societies organically and out of necessity reproducing tougher men (and people). It's been mangled too much in too short of a time.
Wars have generated large death tolls in the past, but in the Anglo world the World War deaths were notably skewed, as far fewer civilian deaths than in other relatively large death-tolls-to-population wars.
"Until the invention of the stirrup, women probably enjoyed an advantage over men when it came to horsemanship. It is notable that a pastoralist civilisation (the Mongols) remedied this disadvantage." Am I understanding the issue here is that before stirrups, women's ability to relate to horses emotionally allowed them to be the better riders and get more from those animals compared to men? Men would treat their horses in a more utilitarian fashion? While once the stirrup came into being, then men could control the horses without as much (if any) emotional involvement. And male strength coupled with that enhanced control then favored male horsemanship, especially in warfare?
How would the invention of a bit/brace or other mouth control have played into this? Or just "head" control?
My neighbor is a knowledgeable and reasonably accomplished horsewoman, with a strong bond or attachment to her horse(s)* [but even she did have a severe riding accident some time back]. She says she can control her horse via knee pressure and gentle heel guidance (with or without spurs?), even to the point it can overcome the ability of someone grabbing the reins and trying to control her horse** that way [but she is also using stirrups in this situation, I believe].
*they had 4 but lost 2, in spite of dedicated care and adequate financial resources.
** my query was in regard to why the Canadian truck convoy protesters could not minimize the ability of the CRMP's to control those crowds by grabbing reins and using the bit to guide the horse elsewhere than where the rider wanted. [Not necessarily a wise move for other reasons, but an option?? ]
Think about male anatomy. Think about what gets squished if, for example, you have to spend all your time doing some version of a seated trot because lifting in the saddle is harder without stirrups.
Ha-ha! I was surmising it was something related to such anatomy, but good to have it confirmed. Same goes for some airpline seats and long flights.
Saddles (invented by the Scythians/Sarmatians, nomadic-pastoralist peoples notable for female warriors) were the real historical game changer. This dramatically increased the comfort of both horses (they get sore, too) and riders (a horse with high withers is uncomfortable for everyone!) and solved the problem of horse’s body heat against sensitive male anatomy. The stirrup’s main advantage (not realized by the mongols) was in providing added stability for weapons use. But riders today, male and female, are trained to trot (sit and post), canter, and even jump without their stirrups, and this is tested in certain competitions because over-reliance on the stirrup is dangerous. If riding without stirrups was truly hazardous to male anatomy, ancient cavalries would have been filled with eunuchs.
I would love to see an analysis on the differences in how male monasteries and female nunneries had to be managed to account for these differences in behavioural tendencies.
I believe you mean monasteries and convents. I have no idea what a "nunnerie" is.
Have you not read Shakespeare? Hamlet, scene 1: Hamlet to Ophelia; "Get thee to a nunnery. Wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?..."
The Tempest and Julius Ceaser, and perhaps Richard the 3rd are my favorites, but I have never seen/read Hamlet. Some I actively dislike (Romeo and Juliet was bad).
There are many. You have to read a different language for them, though. Loquerisne Latine?
Can you suggest any titles? I might be able to fight my way through with a machine translation...
I seriously doubt that they are online. Harvard University press published an English translation of Philippe Ariès’ History of Private Life, that, while hilariously obtuse in terms of understanding them, does quote extensively from primary sources.
Volume two, if I recall, had a survey of the differences between the “rules” of monastic houses for women versus men, but it has been a very long time, I may be misremembering. I do recall this was an actual controversy at a couple points in history. Forth century and again in the eight or ninth, maybe.
The primary chronicles of the Medieval Era are written by Monks and Nuns, about Monks and Nuns, but they are rarely published or translated, because almost no one cares. “First Monday of Easter, the 1147th year of the Lord’s grace;
The chickens got out again and the Abbot dispensed us from Prime while the brothers chased and collected them. Brother Tim is to mend the fence. Two new pilgrims arrived on their way to Rome. The kitchen provided them with with meat, cheese and bread, sufficient to carry them to (another Abbey). Brother Bob has gout. Brother….”
For four or five hundred years….
If you were someone confused about sex differences; it it's all for you, clear as day.
Anyone who says a motorcycle cannot be related to emotionally has never owned a motorcycle.
This is why I drive a 6 speed manual sports car. The wife doesnt understand, it is raw emotion matching the rhythm of the road, slamming i to the next gear at 9000rpm and daring myself not to life until the last moment…… it is exhilarating.
Indeed! But the motorcycle can’t relate emotionally to us.
Perhaps that’s why science fiction (and actual research) pertaining to robots or artificial intelligence have been overwhelmingly the domain of men. A desire to make sentient a bilateral emotional relationship with the inanimate?
Bravo! Fascinating piece I will be thinking about for a long time! Love the Orwell thought -- he NOTICED. Something we all should teach ourselves to do better if we truly want to improve humankind's lot on this planet, which is not too bad right now. I find your writings so interesting and thoughtful. Please keep it up!
A most enlightening, edifying, and entertaining essay—thank you. Continued success in your writing.
Interesting article—thanks for the dive into the genetic substrate that often gets ignored. I wanted to add a few connected observations that have been rattling around my head, partly triggered by your piece.
On teamwork, the male–female difference you hint at feels plausible, though I'd frame it a bit differently. My pet theory is that men are far more heterogeneous in relevant traits (risk tolerance, competitiveness, communication style, etc.), and that variance itself makes for better teams—you get a wider spread of complementary skills. The evolutionary backdrop fits: men disproportionately did the hunting, which is a coordinated, role-differentiated team activity, while women's gathering was more individual, though it did select for detailed environmental knowledge and information-sharing. That might be why women have, on average, stronger verbal and language skills—gathering is fundamentally an information-acquisition task. But I'd caution that we don't yet have rigorous systematic studies on teamwork capacity by gender. The famous football-match anecdote is just that, an event, not a longitudinal study.
Shifting to the cultural production angle you touched on: the takeover of publishing by women (as editors, agents, and authors) seems largely driven by romance and its voracious, repeat-reading audience. Publishers learned that women will reliably consume formulaic genre fiction year after year, which built a stable economic base and gradually feminized the industry. Meanwhile, despite a solid decade of activism, men still dominate comics and video games—both the creator side and the consumer side. Activism can shift surface norms (and it's a real positive that the worst harassment has been driven down), but it can't overwrite deep-seated preferences.
And here's the thing—barriers to entry in books and comics are now laughably low. Anyone can upload a novel to KDP or Draft2Digital, post a webcomic on Tapas or Webtoon, build an audience on social media, crowdfund a graphic novel. Distribution is global, gatekeepers are optional. If male authors or artists can produce stories that grab attention—including from other men—they'll find readers. I'm not worried about their ability to compete. The economic moat that romance built for traditional publishing doesn't block direct-to-reader pathways.
Yes, I wonder how well self-published novels are covered in sale/readership stats.
To my knowledge most self publishing novels are also trashy romance novels. Although the Martian was originally published on a blog.
Great article! The first inkling I saw of this manifestation you’ve described was in the visceral cult film “Fight Club”. Both the downsides of feminism and the upsides of masculinity and vice-versa were on display. It is interesting to have seen the pendulum swing from male chauvinism to female woke in the course of my life and to realize that the happy balance of both has always been a work in progress.
My wife is a very gentle soul, and one of the things I noticed about her when we first met was that she has a wide circle of female friends dating back many decades. Everybody loves her, even other women!
The reason I noticed this is because all, and I do mean all, of the women I've been involved with previously had few actual close female friends, and even when they did they were prone to sudden bitter ruptures, squabbles, niggling, back-stabbing etc. I could never understand it, so the point you make in the essay about this aspect of inter-female relationship dynamics immediately rang a huge bell with me.
Thank you for a very interesting and thoughtful provoking piece of work.
Women have been trained for ages to see other women as competition for men - and therefore, as competition for economic security, a place to live, and a roof over their heads. A man liking you more than the other women around you could potentially mean the difference between a decent life and the poor house. Thankfully because of things like the Pill, higher education, and improved career opportunities, women no longer need men to support them economically. But that early, longstanding socialization will take a long time to fully resolve.
You might be surprised at how many homes require two incomes or more.
Thank you for a clear and thought-provoking piece. It introduced me to a perspective I hadn’t fully considered before, and also helped organise some of my existing intuitions into a more coherent framework.
One small anecdote that stood out for me: the image referenced in the article had already appeared in my wife’s social media feed, but not in mine. I wouldn’t even have been aware of it if not for this write-up. That probably says something interesting about how algorithms sort content based on demographics and preferences.
Appreciate the stimulating read.
Really enjoyed that, a really diverse range of relatable bits of information, without going too far into "one true answer" territory.
The framing of genes and historical selection pressure as the substrate is helpful - demonstrates why there can be major differences on the surface that nevertheless have a common root cause.
It also doesn't mean any of these things are good or bad per say, but different traits and tendancies are more effective in different situations
Very good guys. But why pick on Hamas? The IDF seem to be more violent to my eyes, are they getting the lady's eyes as well?
This then gets into who gets valorised by whom. If the IDF are seen as more technologically capable, Hamas may seem more heroic, even without political complications. Also, there is a noted political imbalance in mental health, which may also be a factor.
The IDF follows standard military procedure. They never target civilians, never rape, never engaged in pointless acts of hatred.
Hamas are literally the most violent thugs in the world. They are far worse than other terrorist groups. They rape children, ONLY target civilians while running away from soldiers.
By any reasonable definition, Hamas are violent beyond belief. The IDF is simply a military. Almost all of the hate directed at it is made up. If anything, sympathy for Hamas is a very good proxy for someone being strongly turned on by violence against women and children.
Of course there are the idiots who get tricked by watching mindless video clips and reading propaganda, but anyone with the basic ability to do research can easily determine that the IDF is a professional army, while Hamas are thuggish terrorists. Hamas killed more Palestinians that the IDF did, but Hamas has better-funded propagandists along with Chinese and Russian intelligence agencies trying to promote anti-Semitism in the West in order to further destabilize the democratic countries.
You have to be deluded to believe that. Really deluded.