It’s time to stop using regressive evolutionary theory to justify men’s sexual objectification of women

Even ‘good men’ continue to defend men’s right to access female bodies, using debunked evolutionary theory.

Image: YouTube

A backlash against the #MeToo Campaign is running parallel with the campaign itself. Brendan O’Neill, editor of Spiked and fierce proponent of free speech, describes women’s free speech to name men’s predatory sexual conduct as a collective “witch hunt.” O’Neill tells us “sexual harassment hysteria is innately hostile to and even destructive of the idea of natural justice.” Men are being accused “of things only the most prudish and immature of minds could consider crimes or misdemeanors.” This is, he argues, “a Kafkaesque hell” and “a cult of ‘believe the women.’” O’Neill concludes:

“The sexual-harassment-in-politics scandal, built on flimsy accusations, swirling rumours, and an illiberal willingness to believe everyone who points a lone accusatory finger and says ‘PREDATOR,’ is becoming not simply strange and irritating but dangerous.”

Reducing women’s collective consciousness-raising to hysteria is a crude analysis that falls upon old, deeply embedded cultural myths: He attributes women’s collective speech to the myth of the lonely wrathful woman’s desire for summary justice because of some alleged inconsequential sleight by an unsuspecting, innocent man. He also calls upon the culturally embedded myth that women’s testimony is untrustworthy and not to be believed. He whips up fear of the #MeToo Campaign by suggesting similarity with the irrationality of the witch hunts of the 17th century, obfuscating that women themselves are calling for reasoned justice.

O’Neill’s analysis erases history rather than learning from its lessons. The many genuine gains made by women over the centuries have been achieved through the dogged, persistent, and brave speaking out against patriarchs whose vested interests are mobilized by belittling what women say. Despite women’s social gains, in 21st century Western liberal democracies, there remains a deep, festering, gender malaise — a dark shadow to women’s emancipation. Women speaking out exposes the undeclared deeply held belief of the Good Guy — the family man with cultural status — who nonetheless believes he has a right to women’s bodies. Women’s speech about men’s sexualized behaviour touches upon this inconvenient truth.

Heterosexual men’s pornography consumption demonstrates the historical persistence of the idea women are positioned as an available sex class for men.

I recently interviewed a medical doctor about his use of pornography. Let’s call the interviewee Richard. Richard told me he finds the sight of multiple women’s naked bodies visually compelling. Internet pornography, he assured me, is the perfect modern-day solution to Civilized Man’s moral dilemma. It allows him to cede his evolutionary heritage whilst enabling him to live according to society’s rules. In Richard’s belief, the bespectacled microbiologist peering down his microscope all day is no less biologically determined by testosterone and the Y chromosome than Primitive Man rapaciously roaming the savannahs of Europe. “This is why pornography is so neat,” he declared. “It allows Civilized Man to exercise control of his base impulses by channeling them into harmless fantasy.”

Richard expressed certain attitudes which he had likely never previously given voice, perhaps even to himself. I asked why, if pornography is so personally and socially useful, he had kept his consumption secret from all his lovers and partners. He replied that watching pornography is like defecating — Civilized Man, like Primitive Man, must respond to the call of nature, but he must do so discretely and in private. Consuming pornography does not mean infidelity to his wife, Richard assured himself, nor does it impede his respectful treatment of women in “real life,” as his adult daughters, friends, and colleagues should surely testify.

Now you may feel sympathy for Richard’s rationale. Scratch the surface of his explanation and we see that the anthropological basis for his claims are very much in line with mainstream perspectives on pornography consumption. Online medical advice about men’s sexual health tells men there is an “evolutionary link” that explains their pornography use. Men’s brains are “hardwired for easy arousal, so that men are ready for sex whenever opportunity knocks — a propagation-of-the-species thing.” Women are encouraged to understand it is natural for their menfolk to watch pornography so “there is no need to worry.”

Women’s Health magazine tells an identical story. Its male columnist tells women that men are biologically programmed to be “aroused by visual stimulation,” and since men have to put in the work of giving women orgasms in the bedroom (if only!), pornography allows them a little selfish space or “me-time.” Men seek their partners’ pleasure — “reading women’s body language, making sure they do not peak too early, and holding in any non-sexy bodily functions.” Pornography, therefore, is men’s “guilty pleasure that’s as brainless as watching a sitcom (but, you know, with nudity).” Women should understand “porn is a supplement to sex with them, not a replacement.”

Whenever a “nice guy” — for example a father, husband, or doctor — masturbates to pornography, is he driven by biology or patriarchy? Informing the naturalist story is a familiar narrative, extrapolated from Darwin’s theory of evolution. Ancestral men were risk takers with a biological predisposition to promiscuity and to inseminate multiple partners; ancestral women played a safer psychological game and focused on monogamy, home-building, and tending their offspring. The combination of evolved male and female traits, so the narrative goes, has ensured human evolutionary success.

Steven Pinker, a left-leaning cognitive psychologist and self-declared feminist supporter, is a respected purveyor of evolutionary doctrine. He is keen to assert that the consequences of evolution, such as men’s aggression and women’s emotional intelligence, should not dictate how social relations ought to be organized. No, no, no. In 21st century liberal democracy and the principles of sex-equality, no-one should condone, support, or proscribe men’s predatory behaviour. Nevertheless, Pinker advises, logical, dispassionate thinking such as his should compel us to recognize the evolutionary basis of some behaviours. Feminists like me can rail against the patriarchy till we’re blue in the face, but the fundamental facts of evolution are the inevitable cascade of consequences on the brains and behaviour of modern day humans. How could it be sexist to merely report the objective conclusions of science?

But is this evolutionary theory the product of science? Cordelia Fine, professor of the history and philosophy of science, thinks not. She takes evolutionary psychologists and biologists, as well as neuroscientists, to task for a fundamental deficit in rational thinking and dispassion that might make Darwin turn in his grave. Scientists elide sex with gender and essentialize gender as a “natural kind” (i.e. biological, fixed, discrete, and invariant across time and place). In doing so, they get evolution “wrong, wrong, and wrong again.”

In her most recent book, she coins the term, “Testosterone Rex” to encapsulate the myth that weaves together claims about evolution, brains, hormones, chromosomes, and gendered behaviour. Testosterone Rex offers a persuasive account of society’s persistent, seemingly intractable sex inequalities. Ditching Testosterone Rex as an explanatory framework allows other hypotheses to emerge, leading to a more complex picture. Fine’s analysis doesn’t require denial of evolution, sexual difference, or biology, but the converse.

Current sexual health advice is cloaked in scientism not science. Under the guise of objectivity, UK National Health Service advice is currently contributing to the “pink brain, blue brain” fashion that is gripping the collective imagination. It presupposes and thus helps construct that which Fine argues science should question — namely, the belief that boys and girls/men and women are two discrete entities, not only in their reproductive capacities, but in their proclivities, abilities, and desires.

Medicine also has a history of constructing gender difference by endorsing pornography consumption. A current, popularized version of this is exemplified by Brook, a sexual health charity. Hannah Witton, its sassy, upbeat, media savvy ambassador advises young women that, in an age of equal opportunity, they too can join in the sexual fun. Young women should embrace pornography’s positive benefits: watching people have sex is arousing, and sexual pleasure is good, she argues. Witton tells us “the consumption of porn should be separated from its production,” since the latter “belongs to an entirely different conversation” (a conversation she never has). Her advice to those of us who might have concerns about the politics of consumption is not to condemn pornography, but “to keep an open mind and don’t shame others.”

But pornography itself, both in its production and consumption, does nothing if not shame women. Let us consider one of pornography’s most orthodox, ubiquitous, and perhaps least violent of tropes: a woman being slapped, hair-pulled, and anally penetrated while being called a “slut.” Or let us reflect on another favorite representation: a woman on her knees surrounded by multiple men taking turns orally penetrating her until she gags and has eye make-up and ejaculate streaming down her face. In the West, pornography has followed religion in designating women as belonging to two separate classes: those whom men are obliged to respect (wives, partners, mothers, sisters, and daughters) and those others — “whores” (someone else’s mother, sister, or daughter), who men can legitimately sexually use and abuse through pornography (and prostitution).

Some “progressives” prefer to depoliticize their pornography consumption by naturalizing their desires and using, at least publicly, the sanitized language of “sex worker.” However, pornography is the disavowed successor of Christian ideology and the ancient stories of Adam and Eve, not an escape, as pornographers and their advocates claim.

Gail Dines, sociologist and founder of Culture Reframed, argues that when medical advice promotes pornography as sexual health it ultimately does the bidding of a powerful industry. The pornography industry has a vested financial interest in hiding the damage it wreaks on the physical and psychological health of performers, and indeed on many of its consumers, in particular children and young people. Whenever the legality of its practices is challenged, the industry brings in the big guns: the Free Speech Coalition.

The Free Speech Coalition, launched in 1991 and heavily subsidized by the industry itself, defends the industry from litigation and provides it what Dines describes as “a socially responsible image,” by framing it as “free speech.” But whose freedom of speech do pornographers and the law allow and disallow? Pornography speaks to historical male sex entitlement, but delivers this message, today, through digital technology and a new ironic twist worthy of George Orwell’s doublethink. Larry Flynt and Hugh Hefner, pornographers who became billionaires on the backs of women’s exploitation, are lauded by themselves, as well as by alleged progressives, women’s equality advocates, and free speech proponents like O’Neill as having liberated women from male sexual supremacy.

Testosterone Rex roams the pornography sets as well as the film casting rooms of Hollywood. Above all, he lives in the collective sexual imagination, no less incited by pornographic representations on the domestic computer screens of husbands, fathers, and doctors than the parliamentary computer screens of our politicians and social commentators.

Joanna Williams, another writer at Spiked, claims, “Feminism has long pitched men against women. But increasingly it pitches women against women, too.” She erects feminism as a straw-woman to knock down: Feminists, she alleges, shame “women who refuse to join in with the pity-me stories.” This reductionism obfuscates the reality, history, and purpose of feminism as serious political analysis which has considered the social conditions in which women and men find themselves for two centuries. Current feminist analysis of women’s speech does not pitch men against women or women against women, in terms of our collective interests. Moreover it is much kinder about men’s ethical capacity than men themselves.

Feminism argues that there is nothing inevitable about Testosterone Rex’s reign, as the act of squaring up to sexualized patriarchal power might demonstrate. His tumescence will deflate all the sooner if we collectively stop seeing him as a natural figure. The women who are collectively naming the ubiquity of male predatory behaviour through the #MeToo campaign are not turning themselves into weak victims, as Williams asserts. Rather, they are speaking the truth about male socialization and power under patriarchy. If we really value free speech, sex equality, a fair justice system, and genuine access for men and women to legal redress, we need to give Testosterone Rex the boot and relegate his loyal companion to patriarchal history too.

Let us remember that the original witch hunts, whose symbolism O’Neill calls upon to demonize the #MeToo campaign, were actually perpetrated by men on women (and a minority of men) whose speech went against orthodox, patriarchal ideas. As women, let’s ignore men’s (and some women’s) cries of “witch hunt,” and become truly active agents, refuse to keep men’s sex secrets, rebuff personal shame and place it with the men where it belongs. Let us, in the name of natural justice, liberty, and sexual freedom, exercise our right to free speech and collectively, publicly roar, “No more!”

Dr. Heather Brunskell-Evans is a social theorist, philosopher, and Senior Research Fellow at King’s College in London. She is a National Spokesperson for the Women’s Equality Party Policy on Ending Sexual Violence, a trustee of FiLia, and co-founder of Resist Porn Culture. Heather is the editor of a new book called, Born In Your Own Body: Transgender, Children and Young People.

Guest Writer
Guest Writer

One of Feminist Current’s amazing guest writers.

Like this article? Tip Feminist Current!

$
Personal Info

Donation Total: $1

  • Thom Prentice

    First I have heard of the pink brains / blue brains hypothesis. Really? REALLY? What if we all sneak into the maternity wards and SWITCH the blankets?

    • Kiwipally

      Back in the day, all the sheets etc were white. But that was so last century, quite literally.

  • Womble Bananaroom
  • Womble Bananaroom
  • Womble Bananaroom
  • Womble Bananaroom

    and finally, fuck evolutionary psychology.

  • Maeve

    Great article! I’m on board and in solidarity with the truth tellers!

  • fxduffy

    “Internet pornography, he assured me, is the perfect modern-day solution to Civilized Man’s moral dilemma. It allows him to cede his evolutionary heritage whilst enabling him to live according to society’s rules.”

    Pure bullshit. The whole concept of male sexuality being beyond control is one huge joke. Males involved in any demanding project can go for months on end without even noticing a little blip of sexuality. Even young guys who get drawn into habitual porn use can stop almost on a dime even if half motivated or in response to a more involved life.

    And if it’s so powerful, why does it need constant reinforcement from the media, porn, and prostitution. It’s obviously biological to a degree, but its vastly manufactured in the male brain, which is informed by male supremacy. Male sex, male sexual institutions, and male sex drive are formed and upheld through the constant objectification and eroticisation of women’s bodies which, whenever practiced, constitute a war against women.

    • Jani

      And all this presupposes any and every woman is available to the ageing, balding, greying, out of shape dude who’d never last five minutes in the prehistoric paradise they believe they to be their evolutionary homeland.

      • Cassandra

        Very funny and true!

  • susannunes

    Evo psych was always bullshit. It first became popular in the mid-1970s thanks to E.O. Wilson’s book, “Sociobiology.” Evo psych/sociobiology was a response by the white dudes in academia to the gains women and minorities were making, thanks in large part to affirmative action policies. Of course, many of the white dudes were upset over feminism and decided to couch male assholery into claiming men just can’t help themselves.

    It is junk science, pure and simple. It isn’t science at all but a political and social belief system couched in pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo.

    • pyrite00

      Yes, cut my feminist teeth on evo psych crap. We used to call it Flintstones Anthropology because the whole premise is to take the stereotypical USA family of the 1950’s as the way humans have always been and then work backwards to justify that assumption in any way possible.

      • Morag999

        “Flintstones Anthropology“

        I love it. A perfect distillation.

    • -Jane Don’t-

      I’m not sure if you’ve see this or even want to, but I saw this doc last year on him on PBS:

      http://www.pbs.org/program/eo-wilson/

  • JCortese

    If the consumption of pornography renders men even more wonderful toward women, they why does consumption of racist literature not render one even more wonderful toward people of color? Why are members of the KKK not the most enlightened white people in the world racially speaking, since getting together and indulging in their “harmless” beliefs would allow them to “defecate” their racism in a discreet and non-harmful way? Why are not avid readers of “Mein Kampf” the least Jew-hating people in the world, since indulging in “harmless” fantasies of Jews as the scourge of Europe would allow them to exorcise their “harmless” resentments against Jews discreetly?

    Oh I’m sorry. Those belief systems aren’t harmless at all, because they are aimed at groups of people which include men. Got it. My little ladybrain can’t keep up with such complex ideas, y’see.

    I’d like to imagine that it’s not biologically determined, but I’m no longer at all certain of that. Frankly, I think it is. I really do think there is a part of their brain that can’t tell the difference between fucking and killing. However, I’m not interested in letting them off the hook because of it. As far as I’m concerned, they can dangle off of that hook permanently. In a cage, locked away from civilized society a la “The Gate to Women’s Country,” where they are locked out of civilization and slowly bred into something resembling a state of sanity.

    And you have to wonder about these guys and their “wonderful” relationships with their wives, which they are always so careful to bring up. The way they talk always reveals what’s really going on — “men have naturally higher sex drives” means “my wife always has to be nagged into having sex with me.” Well, maybe you’re just an ugly bastard who stinks in bed. I can guarantee you that there’s a couple of guys out there who your “frigid” wife thinks are so beautiful that they make her teeth ache just to look at them. You’re simply not one of them.

    • Sashimi73

      Brilliant comment. Exposes the gaslighting of porn supporters so well. Everyone who has watched porn knows it is about subjugating women brutally.

    • Hekate Jayne

      Whenever dudes ramble on about biology and nature and how their violence has served some greater purpose, and it is a part of them.

      Does it matter if they are correct?

      I don’t think that it matters. Because they are letting us know that they are choosing violence and that they will continue to do so. They are explaining why they are choosing to remain violent, when we know that they can choose differently.

      And the only way for us to make ourselves safe at all is to avoid them as much as possible.

      I can know that they can do better if they wanted to. All of the coddling, the babying, the support, all of us begging and asking hasn’t worked. It is a waste of our time, and it is incredibly unsafe.

      • BornACrone

        Yeah … either they CAN’T change, or they WON’T change. Ultimately, the end result is the same for us and for the world at large.

        • Hekate Jayne

          Exactly.

          As a matter of fact, I am pissed about all of the time I wasted on explaining and asking.

          Nope. I was an idiot to fall for the male bullshit that is “but I really really really want to treat you like a human, I just don’t know how, take pity on me and teach me!!!!! Help me!!!!”

          Nope nope. I finally hear what they are saying. And I live my life accordingly.

    • Akasha the Dark

      “Why are members of the KKK not the most enlightened white people in the
      world racially speaking, since getting together and indulging in their
      “harmless” beliefs would allow them to “defecate” their racism in a
      discreet and non-harmful way? Why are not avid readers of “Mein Kampf”
      the least Jew-hating people in the world, since indulging in “harmless”
      fantasies of Jews as the scourge of Europe would allow them to exorcise
      their “harmless” resentments against Jews discreetly?”

      ^^^^This^^^^

      Any other group of people or class, compulsively consuming audiovisual propaganda depicting these acts done to another group of people or class which included men, would instantly be recognized as complusively consuming hate propaganda, and it would be recognized as a detrimental factor for the humane treatment of said depicted group. It would be considered a grave problem if people from the consuming class were allegedly so addicted and dependant on it that they themselves thought of it as an inborn complusion…

      Women are obviously still too inhuman for such considerations to apply to them.

  • FierceMild

    Does anybody else see how insane the idea that one species would have two distinct, and competing, evolutionary tracks is? Setting aside the question of the relative merit of the male evolution vs. female evolution specific claims, the only way the evo-psyche framework could possibly make sense would be if men received 100% of their evolutionary heritage from men and women received 100% of their evolutionary heritage from women…

    QED

    • Hekate Jayne

      Lots of us do see this.

      And none of us are male.

  • Hekate Jayne

    From the post:
    “…..and since men have to put in the work of giving women orgasms in the bedroom (if only!),………….”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    *catching breath*

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    And it just gets better…….
    “……pornography allows them a little selfish space or “me-time.” Men seek their partners’ pleasure — “reading women’s body language, making sure they do not peak too early, and holding in any non-sexy bodily functions.” 

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    ERMAGERD. Do males ever get sick if telling themselves how heroic, how unselfish, how so very truly magnificent they are??????

    I mean, ladies. Males use porn for US! Because they love and respect us, and are so very tired from always trying to PLEASE US!!

    I can’t even be mad, this is so fucking hilariously ludicrous.

    I mean, leaving the gross and disgusting use of porn aside for a moment, has anyone ever met this guy? This guy that tirelessly attempts to PLEASE a woman by paying such close attention, and looking for body language clues, while holding in a massive fart………..

    Sorry, laughing too hard to finish.

    • oneclickboedicea

      No, I think he left the bedroom a while ago, blown out on the wind from his own arse …

      • Hekate Jayne

        Hiya, oneclick. It is good to see you.

    • Jani

      Men who watch porn are lousy lovers. That’s a fact. They can’t get it up for a real woman. They can’t keep an erection and their physical response to touch has been killed off because of the fast and furious “devil’s grip” they use when they masturbate to porn. And as for learning how to please a woman and read body language from watching porn, most women in porn look dead on the inside, and many of them look like they’re in physical pain. Funny how men think a disassociated thousand yard stare is a “sexy” look. Misguided fools.

      • Missy

        Many women in the porn industry have to be completely doped up just to get themselves through the utterly degrading acts forced upon them, then kept doped up so they stick around to be ravaged again and again until they’re considered used up by the slimeballs running the porn industry. The fact that men find clearly incoherent drugged up women sexy and why there are so many cases of the rape drug being slipped into drinks shows how dangerously necrophilic hetero male sexuality can be.

        • Jani

          Yeah, they even use local anaesthetic administered by injection on set because these women end up in too much pain. Yet there always some idiot porn apologist that says “they’re professionals … they’re there by choice …. it’s regulated ….. it’s ethically produced…. nobody gets exploited”. And if it’s all evolution then how are these guys “reproducing” by ejaculating into a Kleenex? I guess it keeps these morons out of the gene pool.

      • Akasha the Dark

        “…most women in porn look dead on the inside, and many of them look like
        they’re in physical pain…”

        Unfortunately methinks this is precisely what consumers of porn find sexy.

    • Missy

      LOL! Can just imagine the pinched look on a guy’s face while simultaneously trying to hold in his orgasm AND his farts while waiting for his partner to climax! (>o<) Men truly are overgrown boys, always having to mention their most disgusting bodily functions in the most inappropriate ways!

      • Hekate Jayne

        And what the everloving shit are they on about with the “not peaking too early”? Like this is some kind of generous, unselfish dude thing that we should really be appreciating.

        Most women need clitoris stimulation to orgasm, and we don’t need an erection to do that.

        I don’t need your erection at all, dude. And if you are pounding a way for more than 6 or 7 minutes maximum, well now you are just annoying me.

        Nobody has time for that. I got shit to do.

        • Missy

          I had a boyfriend many years ago that kept “peaking too early” and boy did I give him shit for it and he never did it again. Looking back, I think about how pathetic it was that he couldn’t figure out why I was so angry. Males are such selfish wastes of skin.

          This particular bf was also a porn addict at 16. His addiction started when he was 12 and saw his dad looking at porn. He told me that pretty much everyday when he came home from school he would look at porn until he went to bed. Since I was just a young teen at the time, I didn’t dump his ass like I would now that I’m older and wiser, but I did make it very clear to him that looking at porn while we were together
          was unacceptable to me and he promised to stop, (which was probably a lie but at the time I believed him). Anyways, sexual issues were prominent in our relationship thanks to all his years of wanking to pictures and videos of tortured women. Once in a while he couldn’t get it up, but most of the time he was horny to the point where our whole relationship revolved around his sexual urges that he expected me to always satisfy. He couldn’t keep his hands off of my breasts even though I told him to stop, and he kept fingering me while I was trying to sleep, basically treating me like I was his own personal porn star that he no doubt thought of me as. One day I had enough and snapped at him which sent him crying to his room, and that was the day that I realized just how ruined he was and would never get any better, if anything he
          would get worse. I dodged a bullet with that one, I found out later what a huge misygonist he had become, no surprise there. I really hope that he is now suffering from “dick death” since it will at least prevent him from spreading his defective seed.

          • -Jane Don’t-

            Oh my god that sounds horrible. I’m sorry you went through that!

    • Hierophant2

      Don’t you know pornography is a form of sexual education? Couples use it to learn sexual techniques and reawaken their sexual desire. LOL

  • According to Marilyn French’s astounding and massive 1985 text on the (im)morality of patriarchy, “Beyond Power”, the first socio-biologists lied. Outright. They looked for evidence of male aggression and domination of females in our closest evolutionary relatives, chimpanzees and gorillas and claimed to find it. New research has uncovered the truth. Mammals almost all live in female and children groups. Only a few species have male/female pairbonding. Moreover, “dominant” males “have no greater number of copulations with ovulating females than any others, and do not produce more offspring. Among chimpanzees, those males who do have the best chance of reproducing themselves are those who are chosen as consort by a female.” Amongst gorillas, the large silver-backed alpha males “have no sexual prerogatives and no preemptive rights over food”. And again in chimp troops, “it is the female who initiates sex …. the males they choose are social, agreeable creatures who share food and who groom the females. Females avoid aggressive males.” It would appear that the only species that practices male domination over females is the human. I highly recommend the book. It should be required reading for everybody.

    • Sashimi73

      Awesome. Will be reading the book.

  • HerbyAttitude

    I love the idea of a #NoMore hashtag. It’s the next step from #MeToo

  • rosearan

    Ah, yes! Evolutionary sexism … I mean, biology. This is a subject I love to have fun with. Men are wired by evolution to … ahem … ‘plant their seed’ willy nilly (pun intended) in as many women as possible to ensure survival of the species (and have a lot of fun in the process).

    So, this begs the question. If one man impregnates 100 women, what are the other 99 men doing to ensure the survival of the species? Do they impregnate the already pregnant women (to ensure survival of the species?), or do they look around for non-pregnant women to impregnate? At a ratio of 100:1, sooner or later, they are going to run out women to impregnate.

    So, Mr Einstein, Gaia is not stupid, and she understands the math. So too, prehistoric societies also understood the math and knew that having men running around impregnating as many women as possible led to overpopulation and the depletion of access to resources.

    Evolution in most primates created the biological imperative of ‘mating’. That is, a man and woman mate to produce an offspring. The mates remain mated, usually for life. That’s more than likely why both genders have been evolutionarily wired to enjoy sexual pleasure AND to feel mutual affection.

    Evolutionary sexism is bullshit. The survival of the species has no need for it and can go on without it.

    • Jani

      “At a ratio of 100:1, sooner or later, they are going to run out women to impregnate.”

      They’re all sitting in front of a screen trying to impregnate their right hand

    • Kiwipally

      This also ignores the fact that every society has injunctions against incest (gosh, that whole “culture directly impacts behaviour bit that evopsych ignores), and having a very few men go around being the sperm donors means that fewer offspring can intermarry/interbreed legally. Plus! the advantage of sexual reproduction over asexual reproduction is that having two parents reduces the chance of inherited abnormalities, an advantage which is mitigated by having parents that are closely genetically related. So evopsych in this area isn’t supported by evolution either – offspring of parents that are closely genetically related are less likely to survive and bear viable offspring.

      Evopsych, where one needs to have Dunning Kruger in both biology and psychology.

    • outer_rl

      Evolutionary psychology may be mostly untrue, but not entirely. Yes, it’s locker room bravado trying to pass itself off as science. Yes, it’s making unrealistic assumptions of DNA controlling our psychology when DNA is just an acidic chemical, not a mind control devise. Yes, it uses game theory logic that very, very poorly represents the real world and can be used to justify any ideological bias the theorist wishes to advance.

      However, in its defence, male polygamy or promiscuity would not change the evolutionary advantageous gender ratio, it would just lead to more conflict between men struggling to gain that position. Since half our DNA comes from our mother and half from our father, in biological terms it will always make sense to have the same number of male and female children, regardless of their mating habits. Likewise, there is reason to believe that testosterone does make people think about and desire sex more. Female to male transsexuals who take testosterone to look more male report that their sexual appetite becomes much, much stronger when they do. This doesn’t mean that men are better at sex, or have stamina. It’s just a psychological desire that pops up in the mind more often in people with more testosterone.

      • Cassandra

        Said like a dude.

  • FierceMild

    So, why do they need Viagra if their biology precludes they from ever taking a hiatus from the baby-making? And if they actually have a baby-making imperative, then why does porn cause dick-death in bed with an actual womb-toter?

    • BornACrone

      ” .. why does porn cause dick-death in bed with an actual womb-toter?”

      I owe you a pie.

    • Hekate Jayne

      Wouldn’t porn then be the opposite of evobullshit?

      Because if they want to spread that oh so fucking fabulous seed (lol, their love of sperm is second only to dick love, lol), isn’t it the absolute wrong thing to waste it? By whacking to porn?

      Their hand can’t get pregnant and spread all of their wonderful man essence.

      • Kiwipally

        Precious bodily fluids…

    • Cassandra

      It really does cause dick death. Men who watch porn are terrible lovers, just terrible. All you can do is dump them immediately.

  • Omzig Online

    Looking back, I realize that I have had a higher sex drive than every one of my male lovers. Every one. I used to love debating my boyfriend about his tired, obsolete evo-psych theories when he couldn’t even keep up with me in the bedroom. I mean, if he’s suppose to be this hyper sexual egg germinator whose genetic destiny is to spread his seed everywhere, then how come he couldn’t satiate a single female lover?

    Eco-psych is just formal dicklogic. It doesn’t have to make sense. It just has to soothe and placate the male ego.

    • Kiwipally

      It is religion for male atheists.

    • BornACrone

      One of the nicest things about having a good relationship with your mom and growing older is that you can have hilarious conversations about things you could never really discuss when you were younger. Like when she figured that the easiest way to have kids (she liked sex, babies, and being pregnant A LOT and has been a GREAT mom) was simply to have sex continuously for a month, and my dad ended up getting head-bobs at work because he was exhausted. I think that was brother #2. My dad was also a great dad, and a fairly sensible guy, and didn’t make any stupid pseudo-science-babble excuses as to why anything was one way or another, though.

      Off-topic-but-not-really: I still have extremely fond memories of when I was little and Billie Jean King had to cram a few tennis balls in that old fuck washed-up tennis player’s face to get him to shut up. Alone among the working-class husbands in our little neighborhood when I was growing up, he would just shake his head back and forth and say, “He’s an old man. She’s gonna kill him.” To this day, even seeing Billie Jean King brings back happy memories of my dad.

      So anyway, my dad basically wasn’t a nitwit. He just enjoyed himself for a month and napped at work for a little while while my mom left him in the dust.

      • Omzig Online

        Her, hee! Your mom sounds great.

  • Kiwipally

    I’ve read both books, I recommend them. There are also whines from neurobiologists, who can fucking take it on the chin as they’re the ones that have been extrapolating way beyond their data for decades. Extrapolating beyond data is not scientific.

  • Kiwipally

    I am having a combined laugh/cry at your comment.

  • Audrey Black

    Liar spotted! Men are wayyy more sciencey and engineery than women. Science proves it. And statistics. Science, science, science.

    Science.

    Fuck, how I hate that bullshit stereotype about men being more rational and objective. And how they sound so stupidly sure of themselves when debating, often pointing to the “scientific method” and talking about “tangible evidence” this, “numbers” this, and “evolution” that.

    No, having the emotional intelligence of a dead squirrel does not make one more objective… the exact opposite is true.

  • Anthocerotopsida

    Someone tell these guys that it’s possible to masturbate without pornography. Your sexual urges don’t rely on degrading women, you disingenuous fuckfaces.

  • Cangle

    A certain % of porn is filmed of trafficked women, more profits for pimp. Consumers don’t know or care if the scene is consensual, in fact rape the theme of much porn. Getting off to slaved, trafficked women being abused should be shamed.

    Animals have more protections On movie sets than human women.

  • FierceMild

    Read more carefully before commenting. I was mocking the idea of 100% genetic inheritance from either the male or the female, not proposing it as rational. You should also read the books by Cordelia Fine already recommended in this thread and this article on why it is dangerous and harmful to use ill-understood concepts of genetics and evolution to justify male predation http://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/11/15/time-stop-using-regressive-evolutionary-theory-justify-mens-sexual-objectification-women/

    I am not really that interested or moved by the work of a man who professes that human actions and free will are mutually exclusive. ‘Behavioral Biology’ is girls-are-naturally-submissive-sewing-pain-loving-house-cleaners tarted up in yet another new jargon.

  • Wren

    “1). Comparing BMIs of beauty pageant winners from the 20s and 30s with BMIs of current winners.”

    WTF, Why? Why would this be a statistic that needs to be calculated?? Let me guess: Is the teacher a man??

    • FierceMild

      Of course he is. And the general assumption of the text used is as follows:

      1) your students is male therefore he will only pay attention to and learn topics if given examples of how the subject matter relates to:
      A) his boner
      B) his money
      C) Other men wearing spandex and desperately trying to fondle a ball.

  • Missy

    And then they have the nerve to complain about how women are cautious of pretty much every man we meet. It’s one thing if these thoughts running through their empty male minds were passing intrusive thoughts since everyone has those, but everyone who is psychologically sound will dismiss them as soon as they enter their mind.

    The problem is that men’s rape fantasies are not considered intrusive thoughts to them, they are something that men purposely entertain and this desire becomes even stronger with the consumption of violent porn, and these sick assholes often consider the porn they watch as something to validate their sadism. They are a constant threat to us and they know it, and it’s just so sick and wrong how tolerated it is and always has been. We shouldn’t have to worry for even a second about one of them taking their fantasies to the next level and start preying on women in real life, nevermind often having to schedule our lives around the risk of these perverse subhuman freaks.

    Men always go on about how we need them for protection, but just what is it we need protection from? The single worst threat to women is the male sex, and what’s even more twisted and demented is that these creatures actually come from a woman’s body, they literally oppress and prey on the class of people who give them life. There are far too many psychopathic men out there, even more so with porn culture being as accessible and violent as it is now, so we have every right to be at the very least cautious of them since there is no way to tell which ones are psychotic enough to bring their rape fantasies into reality, or rather women’s reality.

    • Audrey Black

      So very much, this! There’s also the fact that… I don’t know about all women, but I know there’s a lot more than just me who relate to this: I can ‘feel’ people’s thoughts/intentions very easily, it’s almost like being able to read their mind. I think something that really contributes to it is being forced into hyper vigilance since very young, being a girl and all and having to be alert for potential dangers and thus developing people reading skills–on top of being trained to be more aware of others’ emotional state.

      And I just KNOW when something is ‘off’ about a man, or people in general. And a LOOOOOTTTTTTT of men give off that vibe (a shit ton more than women). Even the ones who have never been violent towards women in an overt/physical way. Violence can also be emotional and mental, and it oftentimes is. And how is one supposed to know what will set a man off into attack mode?

      I think that with porn being more accessible now, it’s just bringing out a problem that was always there. And until men can look at themselves honestly once and for all (lol, I stopped waiting… collectively it’s like they’re devolving), it’s just going to continue. If you made porn illegal, for example, their problems will manifest in a different way (although, I still think porn should be illegal) without first attacking the root of it all. So many of them like to claim that porn is great because it makes it easier for men to ‘be themselves’ in terms of “biological instinct” or some other stupid idiocy. They’ve got it all twisted: if society keeps sweeping these problems under the rug and introducing new platforms where the manifestation of said problems is deemed appropriate, then all you are doing (YET AGAIN) is transferring the problem onto women—because THAT WAS THE PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

      I get angry just typing it out.

  • Alienigena

    “they are projecting human social values onto animal behaviour and trying to make it fit”

    They are also projecting animal/insect behaviours onto mammals and humans as well. There was a sociobiology component in an anthropology course I took years ago (strangely it was about a course about perception of risk, we read an ethnography on Love Canal and a book called “Risk and Culture”). A film on naked mole rat social organization was screened during the course that emphasized the naked mole rat’s insect-like form of social organization (live in colonies, have a large number of non-reproductive members (drones), single reproductive female (a queen), etc.).

  • FierceMild

    If men don’t wish to be stakeholders in justice because it gives them sadpants the right reaction is in fact scorn, not more coddling. That scorn should be coming from all the good, justice-loving men as well. Go figure.

    Oppression doesn’t happen by accident and men know right well that liberty for women will mean they have to behave better in order to be found suitable as friends, colleagues, or lovers. That’s why they’re angry and keep a white-knuckle grip on their porn. No amount of soothing and pretending that they won’t have to change or else keep having sadpants is going to help, because it’s not true. Their sad lonesome boners will not be happier in a feminist world, but women will be liberated from servicing them.

  • Wren

    Nope. I know someone who works for the Humane Society to monitor the treatment of animals in the entertainment industry, and public outcry is great when there are rumors of an animal being hurt on a film set. No such protections or even interest is ever extended to the women exploited in porn.

  • Missy

    Awww the poor nice guys having their feefees hurt by all the mean ladies being mean to them. How dare the mean ladies scowl and scold the nice guy when all he’s trying to do is get a piece of ass! Us mean ladies need a good mansplaining to sort us out so that we’ll be more compliant to the nice guy’s needs. We should set aside our own personal gains and instead concentrate on how we can make the nice guys feel more included and good about themselves since they won’t make any effort to respect and treat women like human beings unless they get their scooby snack.

    I’ve got the world’s smallest violin, and I’m playing it just for all those poor misunderstood nice guys out there.

    • outer_rl

      I don’t disagree, but you have to understand that works both ways.

      • Missy

        No, it certainly does not. Women aren’t allowed enough power in society for it to “work both ways.”

      • Cassandra

        What works both ways?

      • Audrey Black

        What works both ways? Respect? Then allow me: men collectively do not respect women or make them feel included or even really care about making them feel good–unless it feeds their ego. If women have to bend themselves into a pretzel to teach a grown adult how to behave, it’s game over. That’s called emotional labor, women have been doing it for who knows how damn long, and it’s unfair, exhausting, and quite frankly, NOT our job. What men do, especially the covert misogynist selfish “awkward men who have trouble with romantic relationships” is none of our damn business. Cry me a river. You made it too obvious you’re one of these ‘nice guys’ who feel entitled and “owed” respect.

        Teach YOURSELF manners, learn how to connect with people as humans, work on your own insecurities, solve YOUR OWN problems. We don’t care.

        • Missy

          Very well said. That dude’s comment was just dripping with entitlement and how he expects women to cater to him and his fellow self-proclaimed nice guys. He is the breed of misogynist that not only wants women to do all the emotional labor for men, but EXPECTS it and actually believes it’s a woman’s duty.

          So many men don’t seem to understand that romantic relationships and even one night stands are luxuries in life, as in something that isn’t essential and necessary for living. Men don’t NEED to have sex, they’re just so damn use to everything being handed to them that women who won’t comply with their sexual advances are immediately considered catty bitches, prudes, whores, and every other misogynistic slur in the male vocabulary.

  • Missy

    I have a lot of trouble believing those messages at the end of the credits saying no animals were harmed in the making of this movie because too often it isn’t true. Take the near drowning of the tiger from “The Life of Pi” for instance, obviously proper measures weren’t taken to protect the tiger.

  • Leo

    Does the ‘average guy’ make these kinds of ‘social errors’ with other men? Or can he figure out how to behave with them? Women are not socialised to shout and glare a forceful rejection, not even when dealing with obvious sexual harassment. What failure does Mr. Average even have at finding a romantic partner? Most don’t have a particular issue, no more than everyone -this includes women- does. It’s kind of sounding like this perception is more about fear of rejection than the actuality of it.

    I agree that men may not consciously think to themselves that they’ll go and harass a woman -some do, though, abusers test boundaries on purpose- but they do it because they don’t care, her feelings aren’t important compared to his wants, he thinks he’s entitled to her, her time/attention. The focus of our campaigns is where it is, because we want to get men to see women as full people, just like they manage to see other men as people. Phrasing it in such a way as to get them to still focus on themselves and on how they might benefit doesn’t achieve that, and if we can’t change their perspective, we can’t really change anything.

  • Wren

    Ah yes, the “if only women were nicer to men” argument. It seems to me we’ve been mighty nice for eons, yet y’all still harass, rape, and kill us!! But it’s because WE ARE NOT NICE ENOUGH, amirite?? So it’s OUR fault.

    So since a wise person once said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, I say we ladies take a different approach this time, and one that is clearly on the rise in the past year, and one that is terrifying the likes of @outer_rl so much that he is telling us that we need to be EVEN NICER:

    When men can’t stop hurting us, we will take their money, we will take their jobs, we will hurt their boners, we will burn their property, we will liberate their sex slaves, we will terrorize them and make them weep, we will learn to kill in self-defense, and when men are adequately afraid, then the judicial system will be forced to reform in efforts to create a new status quo that convinces women we no longer need to take justice into our hands.

    With this brave new future, I’m betting men will finally feel fully “invested” in a society where women are treated like human beings.

    • Missy

      I honestly wish with all my might that your suggestions would become a reality. It seems that fighting back in a way where men will finally be FORCED to listen is the only way we’re ever going to get the changes we want, that we NEED. It’s not like we would be attacking men simply for being male the way men target us for our biological sex alone, we’d simply be taking the well deserved justice we’re owed into our own hands since the male systems refuse to give it to us. If a man isn’t a violent, misogynistic, entitled pig, then he’ll have nothing to worry about from our long overdue backlash. If only…

    • caroza

      I am so glad I’m not the only one who thinks feminism about to get very, very real. The increasing and virulent misogyny in society says that whatever minimal social contract existed with women is long since broken. There’s a point at which we say: shove your laws. We’re not part of your game any more. Let’s see you reproduce without us.

  • Cassandra

    Ah, an apologist for male behavior. How original.

  • Audrey Black

    This comment will be off topic but I hope everyone who comes across it reads it.

    I want to thank Meghan, other contributors/guest writers, and all the regular (and non-regular) commenters of this blog for really opening my eyes to the world that we live in.

    Looking back on my journey up until now, there were always beliefs I held that paved the way for me to become a (radical) feminist. Yet, even though it seems that it was inevitable I’d end up calling myself one, all of you and your amazing work have not only contributed to it immensely, but also made it possible by giving so many women a voice, validating our shared experiences, attacking the problem at the root, creating a safe space that is also educational, and making the world a better place for it. Thank you. I’m officially ‘woke’.

    And oh yeah, the moderation is top-notch, it demonstrates boundaries (which many women were not taught to set growing up) so well.

    • Meghan Murphy

      Solidarity, sister!

    • Cassandra

      Welcome to the party! (We try to have fun here despite the subject matter.)

  • Hanakai

    The 50/50 ratio of males to females is not astonishing or mind-boggling at all. Sex is determined by whether the man’s X or a Y chromosome is involved in fertilization. The chances that an X will be donated is 50%, the chance that a Y will be involved is 50%, hence the 50% males and 50% females.

    What is more interesting is that more males are born than females, 106 males to 100 females. It is as if Nature did this because males are biologically weaker and have a higher mortality rate. By adulthood there are 100 males to 100 females, as if Nature compensates for the higher male mortality rate.

    • Akasha the Dark

      Yes, I remember reading about that somewhere, the ratio is not exactly 50/50, it’s a bit higher males vs. females, as female inmune systems are stronger. More males than female are conceived and born, but they are more prone to infectious illness (less likely to make it adulthood, it least historically, before modern medicine.)
      Historically it’s kept the ratio roughly equal, but better medicine and sex selective abortions and infanticides will skew the ratio to more males than females.

  • Audrey Black

    It’s ironic ins’t it? How they can, with a straight face, claim they’re intellectually superior (often associated with the new parts of our brain–frontal regions) and at the same time talk about predatory “instincts” that are attributed to uncivilized behavior, as part of the hindbrain—“reptilian”.

    It so obviously demonstrates how contradictory and full of shit gender stereotypes are, and how deeply they’ve bought into it. And it’s MRAs who frequently talk about how weak minded women supposedly are for being a product of their environment and simultaneously complain about “what about the menz? they suicide more frequently!!!”….talk about “mental weakness” and being a product of one’s environment, right? Yeah, keep making fun of women being so ’emotional’….. what they call emotional is actually called emotional regulation. What do men do? Lash out in anger or kill themselves. Because that solves everything.

    Quick side note: please don’t misunderstand this as me making fun of suicide! I think it is a serious topic, but MRAs are just too contradictory for me not to mention it.

    And now, it makes me wonder, if they were raised to believe the masculine stereotype AND since society excuses their bullshit behavior, it would make sense that their brain has indeed taken ‘shape’ to mirror these expectations and stereotypes. And yet, it is exactly what proves that it’s part of their socialization. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

    No wonder they are so inferior at debate, reflection, self regulation, problem solving, relationship building, intimacy, etc. And yet, LUCKILY, they can reverse that, because it’s not carved in stone. Unfortunately, especially for the more evolved half of the population, MEN DON’T WANT TO.

    • Missy

      Exactly. It’s pretty obvious that all the negative traits that men like to stick women with are actually just projection on their part. Sociopathy and narcissism are far more commonly found in men than in women, and both these personality disorders are laced with every single negative character trait men tend to associate women with.

      Males are such huge hypocrites, but if we dare try to point that out to them, they tend to demonstrate these traits fully and usually violently.

  • Hanakai

    It is simple mathematics. Like a coin toss where you can get either heads or tails, the results will be 50% heads, 50% tails.

    Same with sex determination. Everyone gets an X chromosome from the mother. From the father, one gets an X or a Y, half the time an X, half the time a Y. 50/50 would be the expected outcome.

  • Missy

    No surprise that what she wrote soared right over your head. And yes, you are the typical nice guy type who tells us that men can change for the better if only women would invest more effort into soothing the male ego instead of turning our attention to other women where it belongs. Men love pushing the burden of men’s actions and behaviors onto women so that they don’t have to make any real effort to change, then women end up being blamed for men’s bad behavior because in this male created patriarchal hellhole, everything men do is women’s fault.

    And don’t even make this into a political thing, Liberal men are every bit as misogynistic as Conservative men. Obviously you’re on the wrong site if you think we’re a bunch of third wave liberal feminist pushovers. Try looking up radical feminism and educate yourself. The feminist movement is for women and women only. As others here have already pointed out, we are not obligated to include men and their male tears in a movement solely created for us to focus on our rights and liberation from patriarchy.

    Men need to fix their own psychological problems and to stop expecting women to hold your hands. This is a social issue that men as a class have to deal with among themselves. Stop demanding that women to do all the mental and emotional labor for you. We don’t have the time or the patience to coddle the poor man-babies who just don’t know how to act like decent adult human beings. Women already have way too much on our plates, and the vast majority of our problems are both due to men’s abuse of us, and men refusing to accept accountability for that abuse. Sort yourselves out already and grow the hell up!

    • Kiwipally

      I find it really insulting that women already do the heavy lifting of coddling and domestic work for men, who have more time than women to sort their problems out, and yet women are still expected to do this for them.

      Men can get off their own fucking arses.

      • Missy

        That’s why I’ve given up on men as a whole. They can change, but the vast majority just don’t want to. They enjoy the benefits, entitlements, privilege, and free slave labor they get from women’s oppression and subordinate role in patriarchy too much to change anything for the sake of the rights and well being of the other half of the human population.

        Men ensure their needs are met at the expense of women. They either will get women to coddle them like overgrown children, or violently enforce their rule through dominance which, of course, the male supremacist society allows and even encourages. Usually it’s a little of both methods.

  • Missy

    Yup. That guy is the perfect example of all words but no comprehension.

  • FierceMild

    It is irritating behavior to be sure. The scientifically illiterate looove some evopsyche.

  • Hierophant2

    Let me guess, are you an incel?

  • Hierophant2

    I agree with that position. I see nothing wrong with sex-selective abortions if they lead humanity to a less violent, more reasonable sex ratio.

    • Missy

      A better way to go about it is with sex selection through IVF being made more readily available and affordable. That way a woman doesn’t have to waste time being pregnant until the sex of the fetus can be determined, and she wouldn’t have to go through any surgery to have a parasite removed. Of course if the pregnancy was a whoops, then aborting any male fetus is the better option rather than bringing another future predator into the world.

      Of course, the absolute best way would be the Kaguya method being perfected for use in humans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaguya_(mouse)

  • Leo

    “Clearly if a large section of the male population have psychological problems…”

    I’m a woman who has those. While people should treat me decently, it’s on me to not assault people…it’s not hard.

    I’m honestly being patient here – can’t you see how insulting it is for you to present mental illness like it’s a reason and is women’s problem to solve? The ‘default’ human you’re thinking of here is male, and extending that to the default mentally ill person. Well, no. Because neurodivergent women exist too and we don’t think our conditions are a get out of jail free excuse. In fact, misogynistic men too, too often, traumatise women and CAUSE us to develop mental illnesses. So it’s pretty twisted to place the stigma on mental illness as a cause of men’s behaviour, when it affects the victims of these men. Our conditions do not make us harass anyone and they do not excuse it. It’s men who choose to behave like this, if it were mental illness a cause, women would be as often responsible.

    And I’m saying that as someone who does get disappointed at times with Radical Feminists for being disableist just like everyone else.

    PS. Your hypothetical Mr. Awkward Average-Sexist? He doesn’t look twice at the awkward women around him. He’s not interested in connecting genuinely with us, because despite his claims, he’s not interested in genuine human connection with a woman at all. Are you assuming none of us here are geeky, and have tried talking to the men you mean and reasoning nicely with them? Been dere, done dat, it never works.

  • Sarah Wiley

    As someone who is studying in Biological Sciences, I have to say I agree with this article. The idea that men’s choices about their sex lives is driven by an ‘evolutionary need’ or something akin to that is somewhat ridiculous. As any biology professor will tell you, evolution is not driven by choices individuals make, or small adaptations to a temporary environment, but by changes in populations and introductions of new mutations to over a long time to better deal with long term changes in an environment. Therefore, in contrast to what the medical doctor said, if society’s rules and norms have changed over time, moving away from the primitive ways of the primitive man thereby making that type of behaviour no longer acceptable or favourable, men who exhibit those types of behaviours are primed to be selected against in an evolutionary sense. The social structures and behaviours of the rest of the species is moving on, without men who sexually harass women, or believe the objectification of women is okay when done ‘privately’. The MeToo campaign is making bold steps to a better future by bringing awareness to the sheer number of women who have experienced sexual violence and harassment. Not only is it bringing awareness to what is happening, it is firmly stating that it is not okay and changes need to be made. It’s society, the environment we operate in as humans, demanding for something different, selecting those who have the right behaviours to pass on their knowledge instead of allowing those with the wrong behaviours to propagate their ideas. Enacting justice upon those who perpetrate sexual violence is removing their beliefs from the ideological gene pool so to speak. Changes for a brighter, more profitable future is what drives evolution, and in our day and age, one of the things demanding those changes is feminism.

    • Missy

      I can’t even begin to fathom how men can claim that they lose control of their behavior and actions when sexually aroused. I mean, if this were true, if these men really believe that they aren’t able to control their sexual behavior because of their biology, then the only reasonable solution would be to lock them away like the mindlessly violent deviants they claim to be. They are a danger to society after all, more so than any predatory animals. Why should women and children be put constantly at risk if men are “naturally” sexual predators? Why should we just have to accept this and allow our bodies to be brutalized so that men can satisfy their sexual urges?

      So either men need to stop making these outrageous excuses for their so called uncontrollable sexual sadism, or they should be locked up for the safety of women and children BEFORE they hurt anyone. It only makes sense, and it’s the only right thing to do to ensure public safety.

      • Kiwipally

        Another alternative would be to euthanise them, as one would a rabid animal.

        • Missy

          True. That would be the humane way to go about it.

  • Meghan Murphy

    Sorry Audrey! I will check for your comment in the spam folder and rescue it. It seems to be pickier these days…

  • Kiwipally

    Thanks for coming here and trying to mansplain some religion to me, and showing you clearly do not understand the origins of Judaism and Christianity by referring to these as monotheistic (and yes, for all that Christianity includes the 10 commandments and the old testament, it is not actually monotheistic).

    The women here are more educated than you and better read. We don’t need you to come along and mansplain Jack and Jill Encounter Religion.

    Your comment doesn’t even address the points raised in mine. You’ve come to a battle of wits unarmed.

    • ohio ham

      Christianity was never even meant to be a religin. If you read the nostic gospels Jesus rejects any divinity within himself. Like any other man he married and fathered children. His wisdom originated from buddhist monks in India where he went during his “lost years.”

      • Danielle Matheson

        Religion*, Gnostic*

  • catlogic

    Oh, so it’s “disappontment in other people’s behaviour” now? I’m guessing your disappointment doesn’t run to being in fear of your life from women.

  • thebewilderness

    How very pomo of you.

  • thebewilderness

    That is absurd! Boys can learn from boys but they can’t learn from girls because culture? Criminy!

  • thebewilderness

    Very low quality trolling, d00d. I give it a 3.

  • thebewilderness

    Had you been paying attention you would have noticed by now that it is the mansplaining that is on people’s last nerve here.

  • Cassandra

    You’re a regular comedian.

    • Kiwipally

      He must be a regular male comedian because he’s not funny.

  • thebewilderness

    No, d00d. You are wrong. Men burned us for saying no. Men imprisoned us for saying no. Men drugged us and lobotomized us for saying no. Every step of progress we made we made against the tide of men saying it would ruin society if they acknowledged that women are human beings and not sub human creatures created by a manly god for them to plant their seeds in.
    We do not want or need men like you telling us how to better convince our abusers to stop killing us. How effing dare you!

  • SpecialSnowflake

    Frame it this way if you want, educate your male mates about that this way. Feminists shouldn’t police their language in order to attract males into feminism. It’s about female voices and concerns being finally articulated, not changing our language into more suitable one to sound less terryfying to men. It’s politics, not marketing. Women have this pressure in their everyday lifes and we’ve had enough and we want to finally speak up the way we do. There are also tonns of liberal and intersectional feminists who ‘think carefully about the language’ (read ‘act womanly by softening their voices and changing words so that men won’t get so defensive and it won’t hurt their fragile egos’).

  • Wren

    JFC we know the perspective of men, dip shit. We’ve been saturated in it our whole lives. The points you seem to be trying to make are all over the place, and you are completely lacking in persuasiveness but somehow you think you’re gonna teach us a thing or two about it?? It’s actually quite amusing to see how you’re an epic failure at this task. However, you do seem quite adept at confirming your own observation:
    “…if somebody doesn’t want to listen or change you can’t help them.”

    You exhibit a rather insipid combination of stupidity and smugness and are starting to display anger at us because we apparently can’t understand your “intelligence.” Can you just fuck off already?

    • Missy

      Men like him think they can prove to us that they’re not the average condescending, entitled, arrogant creep by behaving exactly like an average condescending, entitled, arrogant creep.

  • SpecialSnowflake

    It’s not women’s fault men are taught this thing. If you didn’t notice, it’s a feminist site and feminists are aware of gender socialization and its nature. It’s about hierarchy. You should learn more about it if your goal is not simple mansplaining. You expect all women to play the role of nurturers not only to their own kids, but to all the grown up men. You don’t even seem to notice the difference between your example of male kids on the playground and what you want women to do. Male kids define their boundaries and that’s fine and natural while grown up women are supposed to soften even more.

  • SpecialSnowflake

    Men have their own brains and human abilities, just like women. Grow up and take it into your own hands for once.
    Everything is already seen from male perspective in the culture and society. There are lots of non-feminist anti-porn campains that already focus on men’s problems and overlook the damage porn creates for women which is far greater or place men’s problems first. There are lots of psychologists talking about social problems men face today because of misoginyst culture. Only feminism sees things from women’s perspective so move along.

  • ohio ham

    A recurring theme in this discussion is that a life devoid of sex and romance is acceptable and somehow worth living. This is a needlessly dark view. Why is it acceptable for one person to go without while another gorges himself? The amount of individualism required to willingly consign a significant portion of the male population to involuntary celibacy is staggering and shows your true colors.

    • Meghan Murphy

      It’s not dark if you are a woman under patriarchy, and therefore ‘sex’ has been largely unpleasant, if not violent and traumatic, and wherein ‘romance’ is steeped in patriarchal ideals. Consider that not everyone shares your experiences, as a man.

    • FierceMild

      I hope you spend your whole life a virgin. You’re unfit for human contact.

    • marv

      You have outlined the sexual wealth redistribution plan of the male left. Women’s bodies are the bounty to be equally shared by men. The amount of entitlement to allocate women to suit men’s wants “is staggering and shows your true colors.”

      • ohio ham

        Every entitlement we now take for granted has been scorned by its contemporaries. Free healthcare, safe working conditions, rent control, all of them. Only those who dare to dream of a better world will see entitlement not as a dirty word, but as a force for equality. Some people want to hold on to their advantages while others cannot comprehend that being taken off of the “plate” and being partnered up with someone the state deams you compatible with is equally advantageous for you and your partner. You are no longer something to be chased.

        • Kiwipally

          Another “incel” demanding that the government provide him with a “girlfriend” that he can rape. Not only are you sociopathic, you’re pathetic too.

    • hellkell

      Dudes like you SHOULD be “involuntarily celibate” (btw, a steaming pant load). The further away you and your ilk are from the gene pool, the better this world will be.

      LOL, you showed your true sad boner colors. Sucks to be you.

      • ohio ham

        Involuntary celibacy has been imposed on minority groups of all kinds since the beginning of time. The catholic church demands a perverse version of involuntary celibacy for gays. This is a human rights violation. Eventually even the UN will recognize the right to mate.

        • Meghan Murphy

          Males are not a minority group.

        • Missy

          LOL! Right to mate? Of course you mean men’s right to rape! What you’re implying has nothing to do with gays since they have relationships with other willing and consenting adults. You are pretty much demanding that all women be at all men’s sexual disposal whether they like it or not, and that not forcing women into sexual slavery and incubator duty is a “human rights violation” for men. Plain and simply put, you are a sadist and a sociopath.

    • Danielle Matheson

      You’re quite simply, an asshole. I’d rather eat ground glass than be with some random man the government thinks is appropriate for me. I’d rather live with honey badgers than with men. They’re probably less dangerous.

  • FierceMild

    You’re bad at thinking. Goodbye.

  • Missy

    My thoughts exactly.

  • I keep reading, every few years or so, some other male biologist wondering aloud why women have clitori. Really. But it has no evolutionary purpose they say. Pounding the table, I think. It’s like they’re really really pissed off that women have a sexual organ that is not all about men. Because it’s not, you know? So what the f*ck purpose can it serve???? (they ask, or whine, or whatever).

    • Akasha the Dark

      Clitoris Envy

      • I think it’s more than that. I think it’s the totally unfathomable idea (to men) that women could be biologically-endowed, even evolutionarily-endowed with the ability to pleasure themselves,all by themselves without, you know, any men around. I mean, WTF! (eye rolls).

  • -Jane Don’t-

    Lol!

  • marv

    World religions have all been founded by/on male dominance. True knowledge is unapproachable there because it is absent.

  • Anon

    god, men are such fail

  • ohio ham

    Independence is a myth. People cannot be counted on to act in their own best interests because they are not rational. As proof see smoking, and republicans. Therefore people cannot be treated as complete individuals ut as parts of a global whole.

    • Missy

      Speak for yourself only.

      • hellkell

        This dude comes off as a college sophomore who’s totally in love with his own voice. Much original, very thought-provoking, wow.

        • Missy

          Idiots like him always try to sound smart, but it’s always a major fail. Of course they’re way too stupid to realize that they’ve failed and continue to spout the same nonsense over and over again.

      • ohio ham

        All branches of science recognize humanity as irrational. I am not making a new pronouncement here.

        • Missy

          Your breed of humanity is definitely irrational, I can agree with you there.

  • marv

    Aye Yai Yai! Class antagonism at men can’t be resolved through respectful active listening to them. The master class has to be swept away as a prerequisite to reciprocity. It’s abominable to turn the movement for women’s sovereignty into relationship counselling.

  • caroza

    You wouldn’t recognise genuine leftwing feminism if it slapped you through the face with a week-old fish. Radical feminism is the movement for the liberation of women from male oppression. That means you. We are not here to fix men or sympathise with them or worry about their inner motivations or educate them. We are here to free ourselves – women, collectively – from the prison that male behaviour puts us in. If that causes vast psychological dismay for the poor little menz who have to realise that the nasty women don’t give a damn about them any more, that is just too bad. Stop demanding that women do your emotional work for you; we’re not your fucking band-aid.

  • caroza

    You do not seem to understand radical feminism. We are not remotely interested in your point of view. We do not wish to convince you of anything. We want you to get the fuck off our backs. This is a revolutionary movement to free women, not one to improve “the relationship between the sexes” (which is a myth peddled by men invested in ape mate-guarding behaviours anyway). We don’t care if we have a bad relationship with you. We don’t care if we have no relationship whatsoever with you (in fact, we’d love it). We want the oppression to stop, and we’re not really interested in asking nicely any more.

    • Kiwipally

      “You do not seem to understand radical feminism.” To be fair, this is merely one of many subjects he doesn’t understand. But just like a fucking man, comes here to give us the “benefit” of his ignorance.

  • Kiwipally

    You’re misrepresenting what happened in NZ, my country. The WCTU represented the first ability of NZ women to organise collectively at the political level, but the petition that came under their auspices was not the only petition: http://archives.govt.nz/provenance-of-power/womens-suffrage-petition/about

    You also fail to realise the colonial situation of NZ at the time (https://teara.govt.nz/en/self-government-and-independence) which means that strategies for women’s suffrage in other countries that were not colonies would not have worked, because the local power structures were different.

    You utterly ignore the history of countries when making your statements.

    You appear to be determined to come here and prove to us just how many subjects you don’t understand.

  • Kiwipally

    Boring troll is boring.

  • Missy

    True, but a man will always claim it’s *his* money, of course. I hear it all the time, men complaining about how they were screwed over in a divorce and use it has an excuse to generalize and hate on women. They’ll never consider any other side of the story other than their own, and they especially wouldn’t consider that a woman earned the money she gets out of the settlement as rightful compensation for countless hours of domestic labor, and just generally putting up with all the crap from her entitled and selfish ex.

  • Missy

    I’m so sorry you had to suffer abuse at the hands of a violent man. I’m glad you were able to get away from him, and retain your valuables and property. Seriously, there is no punishment too harsh for pieces of garbage like him. I wish all men who have abused women in any way the absolute worse things that can happen to them. If the legal system worked to protect the innocent from violent perpetrators the way it’s suppose to, these monsters would be locked up for the rest of their disgusting lives so they can never hurt another woman again.