ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The Cult Of Female Supremacy And Pseudoscience

Updated on April 29, 2017
Source

Female Supremacist Claims Versus Actual Reality

Prof. Christina Hoff Sommers Debunking Female Superiority

Female Supremacy And Institutionalised Misandry

Dr.Tara Palmatier-How Our Culture Enables Female Narcissism

Prof. Janice Fiamengo-The Transformation Of Universities Into Institutions Of Misandry

Karen Straughan On Why Men Are Not "Obsolete"

Preamble

Before you read this article, it might be useful to familiarise yourself with what female supremacy is and where it is presently situated in society by reading my earlier article on the subject. That way this article and the purpose behind it will make a lot more sense.

Having already presented the moral argument against female supremacy in the last article, I now want to go through the scientific argument against it, some other general criticisms, my motivations for writing on the subject and examine the underlying social forces and psychology fueling this pathological belief. Personally I find the moral argument more than sufficient to dispose of this twisted ideology.

But before I do go on and present the scientific argument and so on, I feel it is only prudent to remind readers of what beliefs in the superiority of one group of people over another group have generally led to. It is naïve for people to think that one group of people can claim superiority over another group of people and that this would not eventually lead to discrimination, oppression and worse eugenics and genocide. History is littered with examples of genocide and human abuse, based on the premise one group was inherently superior to another. Look at the Jews, the Tutsi’s and the Bosnian’s. Millions of people have died because they were deemed defective or inferior in some way by another group of people. Whether the basis of such a belief is based on evidence or myth is irrelevant, the eventual psychological consequences will be the same. In fact supporting evidence is likely to strengthen the twisted beliefs of the abusers and intensify the depravity of their actions on the oppressed. Attacking the human dignity of another group of people is never justified. Just off the cuff, perhaps female supremacists should take the advice of Lord Acton:

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

The reality is that notions and support for female superiority are indicative of a society with a value system disorder and a pathological attitude toward men, boys and half the population. We have seen this type of thing play out many times before in history with white supremacy and the Ku Klux Klan and so forth. This is just the latest incarnation of the same line of twisted thinking and evil.

Much of this twisted belief system in female superiority can be traced to the influence of second wave and third wave feminists on the culture over the last three decades, particularly with respect to their presence in influential positions in the mainstream media and academia (more on both below). Female supremacists refer to man-bashing media material frequently on their websites and blogs. Furthermore, feminist terminology (patriarchy, male privilege), rhetoric (thousands of years of "male oppression") and literature does come up in their content, particularly when they are challenged. Click here to read my hub where I thoroughly debunk feminist patriarchy theory.

Some female supremacists openly admit to being second wave and third wave feminists. Other female supremacists have stated they identify or strongly suspect that second and third wave feminists are female supremacists and have encouraged these feminists to come clean with their beliefs (Not going to happen. They like hiding behind the cloak of equality.). It is a reality that female supremacists draw a connection between feminism as a movement and female supremacy and female supremacists have actually directly stated as much themselves. What is disgraceful, is that female supremacist bigotry under the camouflage of feminist "gender equality", has a presence in our institutions. To see what this sickness is doing to our Western universities, government institutions, media and wider culture and for a critical examination and debunking of female superiority, please watch the adjacent videos above (Note: Prof. Christina Hoff Sommers position on gender issues stands in stark contrast to mainstream ideological feminism). This is what happens when we let feminist's social engineer society for decades and do not hold them accountable for their bigotry. Oh and for the female supremacists that think this will all lead to some utopia, please watch this video by Karen Straughan (aka Girlwriteswhat) on the eventual socioeconomic collapse that female supremacy and feminism will bring about. Future generations will not forgive us for doing nothing to correct this social pathology, especially our sons. Actions have consequences ladies.


Female Supremacists And Their Word Games, Mind Games And Sophistry

Nebulous, vague and ethereal belief systems are a red flag for BS. Like feminists, female supremacists love to move the goal posts the moment you try to challenge them. Oh we did not mean that! We meant this and so on....The common tactic is simple. An idea of theirs gets challenged, female supremacists then reframe their idea as something entirely different or simply water it down such that it essentially means nothing and then they proceed to label the challenges directed at them disinformation. This is then usually followed by ad hominems and accusations of misogyny. Debating female supremacists is like sword fighting a fart. I won't go through all of their rationalisations or otherwise I will be here all day, but below are a few that I found were too stupid not to give special attention to.

1. It is not a bad company fallacy to associate female supremacy with white supremacy and racial bigotry. Both supremacist groups support a bigoted assertion that one group of people should rule over another group, simply by virtue of an accident of birth. Both supremacist groups are consequently despised as a result and identified as bigots. They hold the same general bigoted assertion, they just target different groups of people, with different self-serving rationalisations. Just because gender differences are greater than racial differences, does not make the claim that one group of people should rule or have authority over another group, simply because of what body they are born into, more acceptable. Do I really need to explain to people why that is so? Are some people really that stupid? Unfortunately some individuals appear to be. Firstly, people have a right to choose who rules over them and whether they are ruled over at all. It should not be a predetermined outcome based on being born the "right" gender. Ruling or having authority over others, is not an automatic entitlement based solely on being born in the right body (we would call that fascism or feudalism and consider it backward thinking). Furthermore, it is unfair and textbook discrimination to favour one person over another because of a primary biological characteristic they were born with, rather than on merit and more relevant and specific criteria. I could discuss the finer details on this subject, but I think those general points I have given should be sufficient for most people of reasonable intelligence. I dismantle this laughable rationalisation given by female supremacists further, in the section on equality in the hub I wrote linked here.

2. Another assertion that female supremacists make is that female supremacy and female superiority are not the same thing and that this therefore means they should be treated distinctly, as if they are independent of each other and that it is misleading to discuss both in the same vain. Again this does not have a leg to stand on. Firstly, the female supremacist making that claim believes in female superiority, which makes the argument a bit rich coming from her (I will not name this person as I do not want to give this individual attention. She is not Lucy83 on Hub Pages and I am not referring to Lucy's excellent work in this article. The person in question is someone else and that is all I will say.). Secondly, it is a reality that many female supremacists do in fact believe in female superiority. Look at their blogs if you want to fact-check my claim and can stand their content. But I can go further than this. Supporting female supremacy or the idea that women should rule simply because they are women, carries with it the implied assumption that women are superior to men. Support for female supremacy is built on an assumption of female superiority, the support does not just come about by itself in a vacuum. One naturally follows the other, it is simple causality, so yes it is valid to draw a very strong association between them and it is not misleading to discuss them in the same context. Indeed female supremacists use the terms female supremacy and female superiority interchangeably quite often themselves in their own writings. I wonder why? It is such a mystery....I guess white supremacy should not be confused with white superiority either. Yeah, keep drinking the Kool-aid ladies.

3. Female supremacists also rationalise when they are challenged, that apparently claiming female superiority is not stating that women are superior to men in all things. Well if they are going to claim women are superior to men and not initially specify precisely why they believe that and what it relates to when they make that claim, then people are going to challenge the nebulous nature of the term. Female superiority is a very general term in and of itself. Look superiority up in the dictionary. Where female supremacists do define what they mean by female superiority, their definitions are still very general, broad in scope and vague. Weak ideas like female superiority, are built on sweeping generalisations without clear specifications and are easily dismantled when scrutinised. It is not a critics fault that female supremacists adopt vague general terminology and have no well defined belief system. Now with respect to the watered-down definition on female superiority, that women are superior in some things, is that really news? Men are superior to women in some things too, does that make male superiority a robust argument? I guess we should all now think that because people who are tall can get things off a high shelf, tall people are superior. At this level of reasoning, female superiority essentially loses relevance. Anyone can assemble facts about men and women in anyway they like to suit their personal biases, just like shuffling cards and then make arbitrary subjective value judgements about them to conclude either male or female superiority, day and night. Opinions of facts or value judgements we have of facts, are not facts themselves. They are part of our personally subjective meaning of reality, no matter how twisted they might be (I will elaborate further on this point in subsequent sections below).

I could go on addressing more of their points, but I hope at this stage readers can see the pattern of goal post shifting, delusion and self-serving rationalisations to justify indefensible bigoted beliefs and weak ideas that collapse in on themselves when they are challenged.

Female supremacy is not a healthy form of BDSM and it is not a healthy way of thinking about or relating to the genders.


My Motivations For Writing This Article

Some people might look at the size of this article and wonder why I have bothered to write so much on this topic. Two reasons. Firstly look at the graph below showing the shocking trend of male suicide that is found not just in the US, but also across Western society (note: feminism gained traction around 1965) and then watch the adjacent videos in the preamble section above and in the section on the psychology of female supremacists below. I am tired of men, particularly young men and boys, being taught to hate themselves and even committing suicide as a result of that learnt self-loathing. I knew a man who killed himself in his 20s a couple of years ago, for that exact reason. I am sick and tired of seeing hateful misandric bigots in the media, politics, academia and the legal and education systems getting away with demonising, marginalising and ostracising men and boys in society.

My second motivation, is because power exchange between sexually dominant women and sexually submissive men and female led relationships, are based on the very highest levels of trust and respect (like their maledom equivalents). When insidious beliefs like female supremacy/superiority creep into such relationships, that is a gross betrayal of the trust submissive men have given to dominant women. It is taking these men at their most vulnerable moments and engaging in psychological abuse and attacking their identity (the exact opposite of healthy power exchange). Cults attack peoples identities and prey on people when they are at their most vulnerable. Female supremacy has all of the hallmarks of a cult, complete with cult leaders whom are blindly worshipped by their followers. If you are a sexually submissive male, stick to sexually dominant women that respect men (plenty of them exist) and steer clear of female supremacists. Women are human like men and like men not all women are angels. This woman for example is no angel. People might also want to consult the research found in this link (which is just the tip of the iceberg on the untold story of female violence) before they automatically associate men=bad, women=good in their brains like mindless sheep. There is no superior gender or superior race or superior country etc. Those are simple conclusions for the simple minded. Men and women are different, but the genders are equal in terms of human dignity and the value of their lives. Neither gender is superior.

Female led relationships like male led relationships, should be based on mutual respect. Female supremacy is not based on mutual respect and should not be confused with female led relationships. Submissive men deserve better than female supremacy. So stand up for yourselves and look after yourselves. I wrote this article particularly to help these men deprogram, because men need to look out for and support other men. I certainly believe sexually submissive men, like all other men, are worth supporting and fighting for. I know it is difficult and confusing for submissive men to understand the submissive side of themselves in this misandric culture and that there are all kinds of nasty people who will prey on these nice men and try to exploit them as these men try to understand themselves. If submissive men take nothing else away from this article, just remember this, you are worthy of respect, you are a good person and you don't need female approval to gain worth as a human being or as a man. You already have worth which is equal to that of any other man or woman. Don't let people manipulate you into thinking otherwise.

The Male Suicide Epidemic In Western Society (US statistics)

Source

The Psychological Warfare Directed At Men and Masculinity

What Female Supremacists Are In Denial About

The Proven Bias Against Boys In Education: Why Performance At School Is Not Evidence Of Female Superiority

Merely One Example Of How Schools Have Become Anti Male

Why Men And Boys Should Not Be Ashamed Of Who They Are

The Underlying Psychology Of A Female Supremacist

There are a couple of factors at play that reinforces a belief in female superiority. Most female supremacists have a sexuality that seeks female domination (nothing wrong or unhealthy with that or sexually submissive males and male sexual dominance). Secondly we live in a society where most of the information given to us by the misandric media is filtered and carries either the overt or implied falsehood that women are superior to men or that men are inferior. Communications Professor Jim MacNamara in his research study, "Media and Male Identity", found that the media portrayed men unfavourably 69% of the time and only 12% of the time were men treated favourably by the mainstream media (19% of media coverage was neutral). Men were demonised and oftened portrayed as idiots, immature, violent brutes and inferior etc. For some specific and recent examples of media misandry, please read my Hubs discussing Misandry And The Media, Hanna Rosin and "The End of Men", Maureen Dowd's hateful bigotry and consult the book by Prof. Nathanson and Prof. Katherine Young, "Spreading Misandry". The misandric lie that men are supposedly inferior, is also present in our education systems and is negatively impacting boys self-image and their school performance (see this link). The point I am trying to make, is that this is a systemic problem in our society and has been going on according to researchers since the late 1980s. This does have a negative impact on men and their understanding of their social identity, particularly so for young men and boys and especially for sexually submissive young men. What do you think happens after men have been exposed to such messages for long enough, particularly when they are growing up in childhood and adolescence? Men and particularly young impressionable boys whom are still new to the world, internalise it. Please watch the adjacent videos above if you doubt that. If those videos don't make the problem clear enough for people, then let me break it down further with these links so that even my dog would understand it- This is how lies about men are fabricated and then promoted by the media and this is how boys react to these hateful messages. The attack on masculinity led by radical feminists and female supremacists in the media and in academia is a disgrace and if such bigotry were directed at any other group, society would voice outrage.

The association between these false messages of female superiority, male inferiority and their sexuality which seeks female domination, has been conditioned in these female supremacists to such an extent, that confirmation bias has overwhelmed their critical thinking and skewed their perception of reality. Essentially a pathological belief system has become thoroughly sexualised and consequently internalised as part of their core identity. This is indoctrination 101. When all of this occurs in an environment flooded with messages that are continuously telling us or implying that women are superior, it becomes a very difficult train of thought for them to break out of. Remember these people have a sexuality that makes them especially susceptible to such messages.

They have let their sexual appetite and related emotional thoughts and feelings skew their higher judgment to such an extent, that their morality, empathy for others and perception of reality have been corrupted. I have read female supremacists justify indoctrinating their children with their worldview, I have seen them discuss ways to bring about a totalitarian matriarchy where men are forced into slavery or servitude and most importantly I have seen them argue how men’s lives are of less value. This is not fantasy talk with these people, it is reality for them. Clearly such beliefs are harmful to these peoples health and that of the other uninvolved people in their sphere of influence. This is particularly true of boys and children. Hence why I called female supremacy a paraphilia in my last Hub on the subject.

With all of this in mind, it becomes clear that female supremacists cannot be relied upon to provide an objective account of reality. They will simply filter reality along lines that suit their underlying sexuality, which they have allowed to get the better of them. The confirmation bias is strong and the pattern of thought and behaviour addictive. Thus I cannot emphasise enough the mistake in falling for the argument given by female supremacists, that female superiority is an absolute, blanket account of reality. It is not even close and the people that practice female supremacy are that delusional they do not even know it. They are looking at the world through a needle and are scaling that perspective up to all of society. It almost goes without saying, that this would have disastrous consequences if acted upon. Human biology, psychology and sexuality is far more diverse and complicated than female supremacy can account for or explain.


The Scientific Argument

Be warned this is rather lengthy, I have divided it into sections. Hopefully by the end of it, even the most delusional female supremacist will start to question their beliefs (Although the moral argument discussed in my previous Hub and the prior arguments in this Hub should have been more than sufficient for most healthy people). There are that many flaws in the female supremacist belief system in female superiority that you could right a book on it. What follows are only the broad brushstrokes of what is wrong with the belief in female superiority. I could write so much more! If people are that deluded they still believe in female supremacy after reading all of this (and my previous article on the subject), then I suggest they go to a mental health professional because nothing else will save them.


The Short Version

Men and women evolved to perform different but essential roles in the process of continuing the species. Consequently they were exposed to different environments and did different activities. This meant men and women had different selective pressures placed on them. As a result, men and women evolved different traits and abilities as adaptations to their distinct roles. So asking whether women are superior to men, is like asking whether a tiger is superior to a dolphin. It makes no sense because they evolved in a different evolutionary context. To put it another way, it is like comparing apples and oranges.


The Subjectivity Of Superiority

At the most fundamental level, female superiority is a subjective evaluation of reality that is personally relevant to only a minority of individuals. Calling one thing superior to another is a subjective value judgement and that judgement often differs between individuals. One person may regard men as superior to women and another may regard women as superior to men. Neither person is more correct than the other, they just have a different perspective on reality. This is primarily why most people do not believe either gender is superior to the other. Absolute overall female superiority or male superiority does not exist. Superiority of any kind, is merely just one perspective of reality out of a continuum of such perspectives. Female superiority is not a fact, it is a subjective evaluation of fact. More importantly, only a few people find such a subjective evaluation personally relevant to them (i.e bigots). Likewise this is true of male superiority.

How many people hold a particular opinion about the superiority of something does not suddenly make it more correct, just more popular in the given culture, time period and location. A person will ultimately regard their own opinion about something as more relevant or correct to them, regardless as to whether or not most people are in disagreement with them. For instance someone will regard their favourite TV show as superior to all others, even if most people think it is an ordinary or a boring TV show. Female superiority is one perspective of reality, it is not reality itself. There is a difference between our perception of reality and actual reality.

So when a female supremacist talks about aggregate female superiority, I am prompted to ask by what yardstick? How many human traits have you looked at? Have you really looked at all of the hundreds of psychological and physical traits that exist? How do you weigh each trait in terms of importance or relevance? What advantages matter and what don't and by how much? You do realise such value judgements are personally subjective and completely arbitrary? What methodology are you using to measure the traits of a human being? How do you frame superiority? How do define it? You do understand that superiority itself is a subjective term, since definitions and methods of measuring it vary between people? I could go on and on with this particular line of criticism alone. Indeed these same criticisms, can also be applied to the vague, broad and general claims female supremacists make about human biology and human nature. Using their broad nebulous claims and terminology, I can construct arguments from facts that favour men over women. What facts are relevant and what are not, is so loosely defined by the vagueness and broad scope of the terms and claims female supremacists use, that it makes their claims favouring women untenable and they are easily challenged and overcome with factual arguments favouring men.


Sweeping Generalisations, Cherry Picking Research, Pseudo-scholarship And Confirmation Bias

With that said, I wanted to take a closer look at the pseudo-scholarship and the serious flaws in the sweeping generalisations they make. Female supremacists might pick up some attribute such as memory and argue that women have better memories than men. What they fail to tell people is that such differences are usually small differences in the mean averages and that there is enormous overlap between the genders in the bell curves (most sexual dimorphism follows a bimodal distribution). I am not saying that the genders are the same, I am saying that gender differences are often not black and white, but are gray, especially for the psychological differences. Anyway where a gender difference exists in some ability, the gender difference is usually small and there is often more of a difference between individuals of the same gender. There are exceptions of course to this pattern, such as the large sex differences in interests in certain types of social roles and pursuits and in mating and courtship, all of which I will elaborate on in later sections of this article. Nonetheless many of the examples of sex differences female supremacists bring up and many of the gender differences in ability people take for granted, are quite small. In addition to this, many traits, particularly psychological traits like memory, are composed of even finer traits. For instance whilst it is true that women show better performance in some forms of memory under certain conditions, that does not mean that women have a better memory than men in general. Men actually outperform women in some forms of memory and under other environmental conditions.

Aside from the fact that the generalisations female supremacists make often fall apart under closer scrutiny, they also often have little or no practical relevance. An example of this can be illustrated in performing a task like navigation. Men will navigate when driving by using their greater spatial skills. Women can navigate when driving by using their greater verbal memory (i.e They are more likely to write down or ask for directions, commit them to memory and then recall them as they drive). Again please remember these are small average differences. The point is that both genders can navigate equally effectively, but use different abilities to perform the same task. When we start talking about general tasks and a person’s job, there are many abilities involved and they can often be done in more than one way with equivalent success. So it is very misguided to start presuming that women will do a job or task better than a man, simply because of better performance on some psychometric test, as these often measure very fine abilities (Hence why most companies use other selection tools in addition to psychometric tests during recruitment). Even if you gave me one hundred abilities where women outperform men, I am still not going to assume that then means they suddenly can do job A, B or C better.

Perhaps what annoys me most about female supremacists, is the way in which they use scientific research or more often secondary source information (like a newspaper articles), to justify their argument that women are superior (Or have “aggregate” superiority). Being a former molecular biologist (I have since made a career change) and still having access to a wide database of scientific journals, gives me an excellent position to evaluate their arguments. To put it bluntly, they engage in pseudo-scholarship. That is they cherry pick scientific studies that support their delusional beliefs, ignore the rest of the research that does not and then base broad generalisations upon them. They sometimes are even worse than that. They often just pick a few findings out of some study and completely ignore the rest of the findings in the paper (like a male advantage discovered in some area or the limitations of the study). On occasion they even look at the results and make up their own conclusions!

Sometimes they cite a study that is out of date. That is to say that the study has been disproven multiple times by subsequent research. Perhaps their biggest mistake, is failing to understand the implications of the study they cite in the context of the body of scientific literature relevant to that field. Citing one study that shows a female advantage in an ocean of literature on a subject which shows no difference, a male advantage, or serious research limitations, paints a very inaccurate picture. Clearly these people have never done a literature review at university or seriously need to brush up on their academic research skills. I note that some female supremacists have been questioned about this and two of them have openly admitted to selective reporting and referencing. The practice is systemic in this cult. I have contemplated contacting some of the scientists that published the work these people have cited, to show them how their scientific research is being misused. I am sure they would be quite irritated and probably horrified at what female supremacists are doing with it. Kind of like how Professor Flynn felt when the media misreported his research on gender and intelligence (Again please see my Hub on that here). Annoyed and bemused! Alas I would rather not bother them with this nonsense. Dr. Cordelia Fine, author of the book Delusions of Gender, covers the misreporting of scientific research on gender further.

So how do I know female supremacists do all of this? Well because I actually went to the references these female supremacists cited and compared the arguments female supremacists presented with what the corresponding research they cite actually said. More importantly I went further and looked at the related body of scientific literature that the research they cite belongs to. You know, critically evaluating the literature and not just looking at one or two studies. I would rather get a complete picture of the current scientific understanding on a subject, rather than just the findings of one research group! Of course this only applies when female supremacists are using scientific journals. Most of the time they cite newspaper articles. Great! We all know how accurate they can be in communicating scientific research!

Using secondary source material to communicate scientific research is often very unreliable. Nevertheless, with some digging (I don’t think they were counting on someone scrutinising their beliefs with access to a university database of scientific journals) I did actually look beyond the newspaper articles and found the scientific studies these female superiority claims were based on. Again I came across selective reporting. I find male advantages quoted in the relevant scientific journal articles along with female advantages and yet I only read of female advantages in the corresponding newspaper article. I also found the conclusions in the actual scientific papers to not surprisingly be far more restrictive than that communicated in the newspaper articles. That is to say that the press made little or no talk of the limitations of the study (which were conveniently omitted). That’s boring, no one wants to read that! Hence they sensationalise the research. How many times have we heard about how scientists have found some new cure for cancer! The media exaggerates scientific research and that is a fact. Given the misandric slant in the mainstream media, the selection bias against men in reporting the facts tends to be pretty extreme.


The Serious Limitations Of Gender Research

On the topic of limitations of scientific research into gender, I would like to point out to people that gender research in the psychological/neurological sciences in particular, is a nightmare for scientists to work on. The reason being that quite often gender differences are quite small (the psychological ones at least, but not all of them) and preparing a proper unbiased methodology to reveal them is quite time consuming. Often studies cannot produce replicable results or fail to identify the underlying causal mechanisms at work. This is particularly true of studies that focus on very general abilities like leadership, which are determined by a host of much finer abilities (Like the ability to see beyond oneself, hint, hint...). Why is this so? Many psychological/neurological studies employ a methodology that fails to control for every variable that can bias a result. Think of how many variables from the environment (physical and social) can impact a person’s psychology or neurological functioning and you get an idea of the nightmare scientist’s face. Sometimes results fail to be replicated due variation in the participant sample. On other occasions the statistical method used to analyse the results is inappropriate, or leads to bias. Human resource (HR) studies are the worst. They often make bold conclusions from their results, with little or no supporting data or proven models to justify the leaps they make. Correlation and causation are not the same thing. Alas, most HR researchers probably do not have a scientific background or an appreciation of the scientific method.


How Much Of These Gender Differences Are Innate?

Perhaps one of the greatest problems with scientific research into gender, again particularly in the fields of psychology and neuroscience, is proving that such gender differences are innate. The effect of socialisation in producing many of the psychological gender differences we observe today cannot be understated. Men and women are exposed to markedly different social conditions from birth. The contribution socialisation makes to psychological gender differences is enormous. When scientists attempt to control for differences in socialisation, many of the innate psychological differences appear to be quite small and often gender differences are no longer there (again with some exceptions like sex differences in interests toward certain roles/occupations and pursuits). An example of this can be found in research on aggression. People are shocked at the rapid increase in violent crime among young women over the last decade. I am not. The pressure on women to conform to the traditional female stereotype has been removed. The natural consequence being that women are becoming more like men. In fact I read an article not that long ago about a male reporter who took a gender identity test (which was based on decades old research about what men and women used to be like). He came out very girly! The behavioural sexual dimorphism between the genders has narrowed considerably and continues to do so.

Complicating things further is the complex interplay between genes, hormones, biology and the environment. Female supremacists will argue that some area of the brain is bigger in women than men, resulting in higher performance in some aspect of cognition etc. What they fail to acknowledge is that the social and learning environment of people has been proven to cause structural changes in the brain. It is called neuroplasticity. For example, research has found that taxi drivers have larger hippocampi than most of the population and this difference grows with driving experience. Why? The hippocampus is involved in spatial memory. Just because some area of the brain is larger in women than in men, does not mean better performance in some associated trait is innate. Brain structure and functioning are not purely decided on innate factors. If women are exposed to different social pressures than men, then certain areas of the brain will grow bigger. This is literally a result of the environment rather genetics. Even if a certain area of the brain is larger, that does not always equate to better performance in the associated brain function.

Now yes there are some large gender differences in particular areas of human neurobiology which are largely innate, such as the far greater degree of social dominance and far lower degree of risk aversion in men as compared to women. By the way, who is to say either are bad things or not advantageous in the right contexts? For instance, climbing the social or corporate ladder often requires being willing to take risks and make big decisions. Highly risk averse individuals generally don't become CEOs. Anyway, there are a great number of traits which show little or no gender differences at all, even when different socialisation is not accounted for and controlled. This is not surprising given the fact that men and women have to be able to function together in a community. We are different, but not so different we can't relate to each other in communities, survive, pair bond, reproduce and perpetuate the species. If that were not the case, humans would have gone extinct long ago. To complicate things even more, what is innate in men and women does not appear to be as fixed as we were originally led to believe. Epigenetic mechanisms (a booming field of research) have recently been observed to play a substantial role in creating psychological and neurological gender differences in the brain. That is to say that environmental stimuli can directly alter gene activity in the brain without changing our DNA and these alterations are heritable. The slow Darwinian model of evolution is being revised and epigenetics may play a key role in understanding how humans have adapted so quickly to huge social and environmental changes since the pleistoscene. Things are no longer as simple as saying women are hardwired to be better at X and men are hardwired to be better at Y. It appears that human neurobiology is far more plastic than being fixed and rigid. Nature and nurture are now somewhat inseparable it would seem. So even if women have innate strengths relative to men in a given area and vice versa, that is not set in concrete.


Brain Pop Psychology And The Multi-tasking Myth

On the subject of the brain, I am sick and tired of hearing about how women use more of their brains than men. Again this is a sweeping generalisation. Which gender uses more of their brain, depends on what cognitive function is being performed and in what context. In a number of instances it is the men that are using more of their brain and in other instances it is the women. In addition, it is not as simple as saying using more of your brain leads to better performance in some task. Research seems to suggest that more lateralised activity in primary functional areas is required for optimum performance, whilst more bilateral activity is seen with associated supportive areas. There is an optimum pattern of lateral and bilateral activity for different regions of the brain for each cognitive function. So showing more bilateral activity in some area of the brain, does not necessarily equate to higher performance. It depends. Female supremacists often quote a slightly higher percentage of the female brain being composed of grey matter and yet leave out the fact that in terms of absolute amounts, men either have the same quantity of grey matter as women or have slightly more (as the male brain is larger which offsets the percentage difference). The male brain also has a greater percentage of white matter and more absolute amounts of white matter and nerve tissue in general. Both grey and white matter have been shown to contribute to cognition and intelligence. The grey matter argument put forward by female supremacists, is no different from saying that because the male brain is larger even when controlling for body size, men have greater cognitive ability. Sorry, but our neurobiology is far more complex than either of these sets of overly simplistic arguments.

Despite these structural differences, most neurological and psychological research finds that men and women appear to achieve the same level of performance on a vast number of cognitive, affective and perceptual tasks. Male and female brains complete the same tasks using different brain structures and nerve tissues, but perform them equally effectively. As far as general intelligence is concerned, most well controlled studies show no significant sex difference. Where a sex difference has been observed, most of the time a male advantage in general intelligence of between 3-5 IQ points has been reported.

Moving on, I am also tired of female supremacists going on and on about women supposedly being innately better at multitasking. This claim really does not have any solid scientific or factual basis to it. So let's dissect this baseless myth. Female supremacists who make this claim about an innate female advantage in multitasking, often explain it by citing the greater size of the corpus callosum observed in women from a 1982 study published in the journal Science. This study has been disproven multiple times by subsequent studies over the last two decades. One of these studies was actually a comprehensive meta-analysis on the subject. This meta-analysis found no sex difference in the overall size of the corpus callosum or the splenium. The initial findings from the 1982 study have been dismissed as statistical noise by the scientific community. That is to say that random variation in the study sample caused the observed difference, not sex itself. Many other criticisms have been levelled at the 1982 study since then.

Aside from all of that, multitasking (doing two things exactly at once) is regarded by psychologists to not exist and doing multiple tasks over a defined time period (layman’s definition of multitasking) has not been proven to be associated with any brain structure or function as yet (the association with the corpus callosum is unfounded). One study on the subject of this layman’s definition of multitasking, found no gender difference in most of the activities under investigation. Both genders performed all tasks worse when multitasking. In only one of the activities did women do marginally better than men (finding a lost key). This observation was attributed to differences in group behaviour between men and women in the study and not because of multitasking. The researchers also put the lost key result down to differences in how the genders are socialised and not that it was due to an innate sex difference. The sample size of the study was also very small (only eighty people from memory) and consequently the results are not very reliable. Research into sex differences in multitasking in general is very sparse and provides inconsistent results, with some studies even reporting a male advantage or no sex difference at all. There is no consistent and reliable finding of a female advantage in multitasking to begin with, let alone a brain structure that has been proven to be involved in the activity. Making the bold claims by female supremacists about women and multitasking is unfounded.


The Myth Of Male Genetic Inferiority

Being a former molecular biologist, this would have to be one of the worst areas for female supremacists to pick considering my knowledge in this area. The argument men are genetically inferior because of the Y chromosome is nonsense. Firstly the Y chromosome has not lost a gene in last 25 million years. The linear model that had everyone saying men are going to become extinct soon has been dismissed. The rate of decline of the Y chromosome has slowed dramatically over the last several tens of millions of years. Indeed research has shown that the Y chromosome contains palindromes of DNA sequence that allow it to recombine with itself. This functions as a form of DNA repair and allows the Y chromosome to replace defective copies of genes. Aside from that, if the Y chromosome does disappear, which geneticists say is very unlikely now, another sex determination system will simply evolve to replace it. This is already happening in several species, quite a few of which are mammals (although losing the Y chromosome is still very rare in mammals and the rest of the animal kingdom). If the Y chromosome vanishes, males won’t disappear, they will just have a different sex determination system. Our species is too complex (most vertebrates are in general), to reproduce asexually or by parthenogenesis. We evolved to sexually reproduce for a reason. Parthenogenesis is not and never can be a natural process in humans because of genomic imprinting and the complexity of our development requiring such a precise level of gene expression. This is true for mostly all vertebrates. Reproducing asexually might work for simple bacteria, but it is nowhere near sufficient for human reproduction. By the way if we made parthenogenesis possible somehow, there would be a lot of female clones walking around! Not to mention no men to do all the work or take all the blame for female supremacists. All the hazardous work would have to be done by women, including the really strenuous physical work. Yeah, good luck with that!

Either way women could be replaced too with an artificial womb and male eggs, thanks to advances made recently in reproductive science. In fact results from research into an artificial womb have been highly promising and would have carried mice to term if it had not been for ethical restrictions. The research outraged feminists, they claimed it would make women redundant. Funny how they go completely silent about research into artificial sperm and making men redundant (some female supremacists and radical feminists alike even fantasise about the idea in their writings). So yes technology can replace men but it can also replace women too! Despite the media hype, science and technology is nowhere achieving either result. Nonetheless given enough time we could eventually create a man free world, but we could also eventually make a woman free world too. How boring for both genders!

Suggesting women are superior to men because they have two copies of the X chromosome and ranting on about mosaicism are misguided arguments. Firstly women like men, have only one active X chromosome in which the genes are active and expressed. Women have their other X chromosome inactivated to ensure appropriate levels of gene expression, as too much can be lethal or cause a serious genetic disorder. If anything, it is men that express more types of genes than women, as men have a copy of all of the X chromosome genes, but additionally also express genes on the Y chromosome that women lack. Now yes, whilst the majority of genes on women's inactive X chromosome are not expressed and inactive, there are a minority of genes where both copies on each X chromosome are expressed in women. However some of these genes have homologs on the Y chromosome and are doubly expressed in men as well. These are found near regions where the X and Y chromosome pair up in meiosis. As for the remaining genes that are doubly expressed in women but not in men, so what? Many of these genes play a role in female specific biology, such as breast development, the menstrual cycle (and all of the associated physiological and psychological processes) and lactation. Hence the reason why both copies of the genes are active and why women get a double dose of the corresponding enzymes, hormones and cell receptors they encode. This same reality also contributes to breast cancer being far more common in women than in men. Just because some genes are expressed doubly so (both copies active) in women as compared to men, does not automatically mean it conveys some superior phenotype. Molecular genetics is a little bit more complicated than that. For example a number of plants express more genes than humans, does that make plants superior to humans? I don't think so. My goodness some people are stupid. ROFL.

Despite what female supremacists think, mosaicism of the X chromosome has advantages and disadvantages. Expressing one copy of the X chromosome in one cell line and having the other copy of the X chromosome active in another cell line in various tissues, can prevent certain diseases linked to the X chromosome. However this is not always fully compensatory, as half of the cells of the relevant body tissue still have a copy of the X chromosome with the defective version of the relevant gene being actively expressed. Adrenoleukodystrophy is one example (The movie Lorenzo’s oil is based on that) of where mosaicism is not fully compensatory. Women still suffer some effects from that X-linked genetic disease, despite mosaicism.

Aside from that, there are other instances where mosaicism is not advantageous but instead comes at an opportunity cost. This can be illustrated with the following example. Two alleles or versions of a gene might permit the same capacity for cellular replication or mitosis, but one allele may convey a functionally superior trait to a person relative to the other allele. In such a situation, the cell line expressing the functionally superior allele and the other cell line expressing the inferior allele, would both make up the relevant tissues and organs. This is because neither allele would provide a competitive advantage for cell replication to their respective cell lines and thus both cell lines would have the same capacity to replicate and comprise relevant tissues and organs. So if a woman is a mosaic in which she expresses two different alleles of a gene in two distinct cell lines, as a result of a different copy of the X chromosome being active in each cell line, she may be at a disadvantage compared to a man that has the same single active copy of the functionally superior allele expressed in all of his cells. The woman would have a mixture of two alleles expressed in her tissues and organs, but one allele of the pair would be functionally inferior and thus only half of the woman's tissue, organs and cells would have the functionally superior allele active and expressed. Conversely, the man would have the functionally superior allele active and expressed in all of his tissue etc, as a result of him having only the functionally superior allele in his genome, as he has only one X chromosome compared to the woman's two. So men might be overrepresented at the top end of the scale for certain favourable traits compared to women, precisely because they are not mosaics.

Another disadvantage with mosaicism, is that the process that inactivates one of the copies of the X chromosome in women can be imperfect. Incomplete silencing of the X chromosome has been linked to several genetic diseases that are far more common in women than in men. Men don’t have to worry about this because we don’t inactivate our X chromosome as we only have one copy. While female supremacists go on about all of the genetic disorders that are more common in men, they leave out the fact that women show a substantially greater genetic predisposition to: autoimmune diseases, depression, anxiety, dementia (including but not limited to Alzheimer's), osteoporosis, joint problems and pain related disorders such as arthritis and migraines just to name a few. Some of these diseases are related to female mosaicism and others are instead a consequence of other flaws in female genetics.

Lastly, I wanted to dispose of the myth that the female pathway is the default pathway in our development. It used to be our scientific understanding that there was a female default pathway to human development. However recent research in molecular genetics has thrown out that old paradigm. It seems that there is no actual male or female default pathway to sexual development. It now appears that what determines whether someone is male or female, depends on the outcome of a complex interplay between pro-female and pro-male genes, hormones and the environment of the womb. The SRY gene is simply one of many genes and other factors that determine our gender during development. In fact recent research has shown that women actually have to suppress their inner male in order to become female. In women, several pro-female genes have to actively suppress pro-male genes in order for women to become female. When scientists silenced one of these pro-female genes in mice, the ovarian cells of female mice (a strong homolog of the gene is present in humans) started to take on the characteristics of testicular cells (supporting development of sperm and turning into male hormone secreting cells) even in the absence of an SRY gene. With our more modern understanding, it is not as easy as simply reducing gender determination down to chromosomes or the presence or absence of a single gene (SRY) anymore. Aside from all of that, lets just say for the sake of argument there was a female default pathway. So what? Misogynists in the past have used this same understanding (which has recently been disproved) to suggest that males were superior to females. That is that men were the special, enhanced sex and women were just the ordinary default sex. It is kind of ironic that female supremacists have used the same argument as misogynists to suggest females are superior! They just put a different spin on it. Oh and when did primacy become an argument for which gender is superior anyway? Bacteria have primacy over humans, are they then meant to be superior to us?


A Further Rebuttal Debunking The Female Supremacist Myths Of The Y Chromosome

In this section I wanted to focus and elaborate further on debunking the nonsense about the Y chromosome disappearing and the Y chromosome being a rotting X chromosome or rotting chromosome in general. These are particularly frequent arguments put forward by female supremacists, hence the extra focus on debunking them.

The latest evidence now overwhelmingly suggests the human male Y chromosome will remain stable in size and will not disappear. This is based on three major areas of research. Geneticists have now observed in multiple mammalian lineages in addition to the human evolutionary lineage, that the shrinking of the Y chromosome stopped tens of millions of years ago and that the chromosome has since been stable in size. The Y chromosome appears to reach a point where it stops shrinking in size and this appears to be fairly common in the sexual evolution of mammals (with some very rare exceptions which I touched upon in the previous section on debunking men’s supposed genetic inferiority). Given the lack of evidence of further decline of the Y chromosome over such a long time span of tens of millions of years in multiple lineages, the hypothesis that the Y chromosome will disappear in humans and in other mammals is unfounded. That is not just my opinion, that is the present view of the vast majority of the scientific community.

There are evolutionary processes that are working to keep the Y chromosome stable. Firstly the Y chromosome is uniquely subject to strong selective pressures as male carriers of it have only one copy of the chromosome, unlike other chromosomes where two copies are inherited. Purifying selection is one process in which these selective pressures manifest. Basically relatively minor defects in the Y chromosome lead to infertility or reduced fertility, as males only carry one copy and the Y chromosome contains genes for spermatogenesis. Consequently this leads to only the most functional Y chromosomes being passed on in the gene pool. So the genetic quality of the Y chromosome is essentially purified in the human gene pool. Positive selection is another hypothesised process in which these selective pressures manifest. Any positive change in the Y chromosome that enhances its function, leads to its male carrier producing more offspring and dominating the future gene pool. Again these two processes are greatly amplified for the Y chromosome relative to other chromosomes, as there is only one copy of the chromosome carried. The second area of research explaining the stabilisation of the Y chromosome, relates to the recent discovery of a core group of very valuable genes on the Y chromosome, expressed in tissues throughout the body. Analysis of these genes shows they play critical and valuable functions in gene regulation, metabolism and cell functioning, which enhance survival and enhance the functioning of particular tissues and are not involved in the development or functioning of the male sex organs. Given the large evolutionary benefit of these genes, it is thought that they may contribute to a strong selective pressure halting further shrinking of the Y chromosome. The final area of research explaining the stable Y chromosome, are the palindromes acting as a mechanism of chromosomal repair, which I mentioned in the previous section of this article.

The notion that the Y chromosome is a “rotting chromosome” or a “defective X chromosome” is rubbish. The Y chromosome has shrunk to prevent recombination with the X chromosome as much as possible. Put simply, the Y chromosome has shrunk so that it can keep its genetic content exclusively in males. Had the Y chromosome not undergone this process, males genes would have been inherited in female offspring. Why? The Y chromosome would have still been homologous enough to the X chromosome, to be able to recombine to a substantive degree with the X chromosome and male Y chromosome genes would have been transferred to the X chromosome as a result. Consequently there would not have been sexual differentiation, defeating the function of the Y chromosome to produce the male sex. This would have led to species extinction of our distant ancestors, as there would have been no distinct males and females that could reproduce with each other.

The shrinking of the Y chromosome has actually been an evolutionary advantageous process for the male sex and also the human species. It has allowed for males to exclusively develop advantageous traits that enhance their survival fitness and reproductive success, in isolation from the rest of the genome they share with females. It is also worth noting that the Y chromosome has also actually acquired genes on multiple occasions over its evolutionary history and not just lost them. Merely one example of that, is the discovery of multiple recent additions of new genes on the human Y chromosome over the last 6 million years that are not found in our closest relative the Chimpanzee, or in our common ancestors that lived millions of years ago. So the Y chromosome is not a rotten chromosome. In fact analysis of the human Y chromosome shows that it is actually highly genetically conserved (the DNA sequence varies little) between human men, particularly in the palindromes I mentioned in the previous section of this article. There seems to be little room for minor defects in the Y chromosome thanks to purifying selection. Hence the DNA of the Y chromosome has little variation among men and is highly conserved. This is why all of this unfounded talk about men becoming infertile in a hundred thousand years or so due to the supposedly disappearing Y chromosome (which we now know is not happening!), is so ridiculous. Men with more functional Y chromosomes are more fertile and so their Y chromosomes dominate the future gene pool. Defective Y chromosomes do not make it very far, because they cannot facilitate their own transmission. If anything men are going to become more fertile, thanks to the selective forces on the Y chromosome. I shake my head at this idiocy. How can people not see the obvious? Why do I even have to point this out?

The Y chromosome is not a shrunken defective X chromosome! The Y chromosome was not derived from the X chromosome. The Y chromosome and the X chromosome are both derived from a common ancestral chromosome that was neither X nor Y that existed about 166 million years ago (in our ancestors that probably laid eggs before the X/Y system came about and used environmental temperature to determine sex). Over time this ancestral chromosome differentiated through evolutionary processes, into the X and Y chromosome. Female supremacists make simple judgements that the size of the X chromosome makes it “better” and typify it incorrectly as a “female” chromosome (whatever that means). The X chromosome is present in both men and women and is not exclusive to the female sex like the Y chromosome is exclusive to males. The X chromosome also contains a lot more genes that have nothing to do with sexual determination than the ones that do and these genes underpin biological processes that men and women share. It is wrong to say the X chromosome is a “female chromosome”, as it is not exclusive to women and a far lower percentage of the genes of the X chromosome compared to the Y chromosome, are involved in sex determination. So comparing the size of the Y chromosome to the X chromosome, as if that is an accurate comparison of the genetic complexity of men and women, is nonsense. It is also worth noting that a handful of genes on the Y chromosome, can have a large impact if they regulate other genes and there are indeed a number of such regulatory genes on the Y chromosome. So the Y chromosome might be small, but it has a large impact on gene expression and physiology etc relative to its size when compared to other chromosomes.

In summary the Y chromosome is a small and yet streamlined carrier of genetic information. It is routinely filtered through selective processes to remove genetic defects. It also contains a powerful set of genes that are valuable to survival, regulate other genes both directly and indirectly and perform other important functions. There are other genes on the Y chromosome that code for sperm production and other genes that play other roles in male sex determination. The Y chromosome is the only chromosome that is present in only one gender. Men have all the chromosomes women have and then have extra genetic information on their Y chromosome that women lack. No I do not think that makes men superior to women. I hope this section and the other section before it, debunks the simplistic interpretation female supremacists have on male genetics. I could go on further debunking their nonsense, but this should suffice.


The Myth A Woman’s Life Has More Value Than A Man’s

Perhaps the most common argument that I have seen quoted by female supremacists has to do with women having a uterus! Aside from the obvious fact that men are required for reproduction, the greater reproductive contribution of women by carrying a fetus for nine months does not make their lives more valuable. Neither does the fact women are the rate limiting factor of reproduction. Suggesting men are more disposable than women, is a common erroneous interpretation of evolutionary biology.

Firstly let us examine a few universal truths. Men contain half the human genome and contribute half the gametes required for sexual reproduction. The sex ratio at birth of men and women is roughly 1:05:1 (with a little more males born to account for the slightly higher infant mortality among boys). This ratio has been observed across countries and over decades of recorded history. From birth until the age of 64 in several cohorts (such as 15-30) across most countries, the functional sex ratio is 1:1. To understand why the functional sex ratio is 1:1, may I refer people to Fishers principle.

Now the most ideal situation from a reproductive standpoint only, is to have an abundance of women in the population because they contain the uterus and are the rate limiting factor of reproduction. One man could father one hundred offspring in the same time frame it takes for a woman to give birth to one baby (Think Genghis Khan!). What this means is that women are clearly needed more than men right? The value of a woman’s life must be more important than a man’s right? Wrong. If that were the case, then we would see a sex ratio in the population heavily skewed in favour of women. If reproductive value and capacity was all that mattered, why produce an oversupply of disposable men?

Yet we don’t see a 9:1 ratio (or some abnormally high figure) in favour of women, we see a 1:1 ratio. What has occurred over hundreds of millions of years of sexual evolution, is that Fishers principle has driven our biology and that of our ancestors, to divide the contribution to the perpetuation of the species equally between the genders. The conflict between Fishers principle and selection for more females, has provided a selective pressure to transfer some of the burden for continuing the species onto the male. This makes sense, we cannot justify having half the population walking around as biological deadweight. That would be extraordinarily inefficient and lead to extinction.

In order for the sex ratio to stay at 1:1 and Fishers principle to overwhelm selection for more women, men had to contribute something equal to women’s reproductive contribution. While women confer a greater reproductive value than men to the perpetuation of the species, men convey a greater survival value. You might have uterus, but we are physically stronger and fitter than you. Psychologically speaking, we have also evolved advantages to contribute to the survival of the species. Women have evolved advantages that are useful in reproduction and child bearing. Is it as simple as that? No. However that is the general pattern.

The survival value of men pays for the survival deficit of women. Women are physically vulnerable creatures. In primitive times we could not risk losing a uterus from predators, hostile tribes and the physical demanding and hazardous work that was often required to sustain, shelter and feed communities etc. Consequently women did not evolve the muscle mass and fitness of men (and psychological attributes required to operate in risky, hostile environments), because they represented the rate limiting factor of reproduction. Women were particularly more vulnerable than men and dependent on others providing for them during pregnancy, especially in the late stages and shortly after birth (arguably they still are). The same thing that gave women reproductive value, made them a survival liability to the species. It was a liability and a weakness men had to cover for. The species survived by maximising its strengths and covering its weaknesses.

Of course the same is all true with respect to women. The reproductive value of women pays for the reproductive deficit of men. Women cover men’s liability and weakness. Both reproduction and survival are required for the perpetuation of the species. The value of the genders to the species is equivalent. If it were not, the sex ratio at birth would not be 1:1. Sex allocation, that is the parental expenditure in producing a certain sex, would not be even like it is. In a biological sense, women are the rate limiting factor of reproduction and men are the rate limiting factor survival.

I have discussed this subject and so-called "male disposability" further in another article linked here.


A Detailed Account Of Evolutionary Biology Explaining Why Men Are Just As Valuable As Women

In this section I wanted to elaborate more on the evolutionary biology underpinning what I wrote in the section above, regarding why men are not less valuable than women. This argument about men being biologically disposable rests on a very faulty and incorrect understanding about evolution. I do have knowledge in evolutionary biology from my former background in the molecular life sciences, so I want to clear this nonsense up.

If reproduction was all that was required for evolutionary success, then life beyond microbes would not exist. This idea that reproduction is the primary force driving evolution and therefore that women are by default more biologically valuable than men due to being the rate limiting constraint on reproduction (thanks to being the bearers of gestation), is fundamentally wrong and a gross simplification of evolutionary biology. This is particularly so in relation to complex multicellular life like humans. There is more to evolutionary success than investment in reproduction. The animal kingdom is teeming with species like humans, elephants, whales and countless other examples, that have slow rates of reproduction, slow rates of maturity, long life spans, have large body sizes and large energy and resource requirements. None of these species reproduce many offspring and pale in comparison to bacteria, fungi or insects that literally produce hundreds to millions of offspring. Evolution is driven by more than just how many offspring you can produce and reproduction is merely just one component to evolutionary success.

Evolutionary success is about genes surviving the passage of time. Reproduction is one component of that drive, but so is the survival and adaptability of the organism the genome is housed in. The parameters that determine evolutionary success and how much investment a species makes in its own reproduction versus survival, differs across time and environments. It was because complex multicellular life had a fitness advantage over simple microbial life in particular environments, that life on this planet progressed to the point where we have large and complex organisms like humans, whales, elephants and so on. Many environments require more complex adaptation than bacteria simply changing a few base pairs in their DNA and reproducing thousands of offspring with the advantageous mutation. Complex multicellular organisms could adapt in novel and more sophisticated ways, which gave them a fitness advantage and this eventually led to humans and all of the other “evolutionary failures” according to female supremacist logic (since they don’t reproduce much relatively speaking).

Furthermore, what determines evolutionary success at one level of biological complexity does not at another level. Humans face completely different natural selective pressures to bacteria for instance. What drives evolution changes as you go further and further up the ladder of biological complexity. Simple microbial life tends to be driven in its evolution, more around the rate of reproduction (r). Complex life like humans and elephants, tend to have their evolution based primarily around the carrying capacity of their habitat (K). What I am describing is called r/K selection theory and outlines precisely why evolutionary success does not solely revolve around how many times a species reproduces, particularly so for species like humans.

r/K selection theory has now been incorporated into a newer broader model called the life history model. However the key tenants of r/K selection theory still remain valid and essential to the life history model. That is that evolutionary success is governed not just by the rate of reproduction (r), but also by the survival capabilities of a species to make use of the carrying capacity of their habitat (K). All the life history model has done is to examine how the relative investment in these two strategies relates to an organisms life cycle and what life cycle is optimal for the environment. In some environments life cycles with low rates of reproduction and high rates of investment in survival capabilities are preferable, when compared to life cycles with high rates of reproduction. Which is why humans and other higher order species have evolved in the first place and why microbes did not become the only source of life on Earth. Again there is more to evolutionary success than simple investment in reproduction. I apologise if I am being repetitive but it is truly amazing how many people fail to grasp these simple concepts.

Evolution works like gears on a bike, how a species evolves changes as it becomes more complex and works very differently between lower order species and higher order species. This is why comparing human males to male worker bees, male ants or male spiders as female supremacists do, is nonsensical! The parameters governing evolutionary success for a male worker bee is entirely different to a human male. The scale, scope and nature of the natural selective pressures facing them is vastly different.

Humans are an example of a slow reproducing K species. There is a high degree of parental investment, slow maturity of our young, complex biology, long life spans and low rates of reproduction. Our evolution is primarily driven by making the most efficient use of our habitat and thereby using its carrying capacity to the maximum possible extent. This is why our biology is divided into systems (respiratory, circulatory and digestive systems for instance) that work in synergy to efficiently make use of the resources available. It is why we have sexual reproduction, which enables more complex genetics to develop (such as homologous recombination during meiosis, the mixing of two different sets of chromosomes from two different parents to produce novel genetic variation and genomic imprinting etc) and more sophisticated ways of adapting to the environment and making better use of available resources. Simple microbial life do not share the biological sophistication of K species and they reproduce asexually without a male or female sex type.

Now that I have explained all of that, we can look at human males and females with a broader and more accurate view of evolutionary biology. Whilst humans overall as a species are deep on the K side of the scale of evolutionary development, there are sex differences on the r and K scale in terms of physiology, neurology and mating. Human males are organisms which have developed K sex characteristics to attract human females and possess a bias toward an r mating strategy. Human females are organisms which have developed r sex characteristics to attract human males and possess a bias toward a K mating strategy. What does that all mean? Basically men have evolved sexually dimorphic traits that make them good providers and protectors, in order to attract females. Men are taller, heavier, stronger, fitter, develop to maturity over a longer time span and have acquired psychological traits to make use of the environment and build civilisation. These are K traits. If women want to blame someone for this supposed sexism, then you can blame yourselves for sexually selecting men with these qualities! Women on the other hand have evolved sexually dimorphic traits that make them good nurturers and child bearers, in order to attract males. Women generally have a much greater investment in their own fertility and in producing offspring and in looking after infants at very young ages (such as breast feeding). Women have evolved physical characteristics that directly demonstrate or indirectly indicate their fertility to males, such as smooth skin, long hair, a good waist to hip ratio, breast size and so on. Women are generally smaller than men, reach sexual maturity earlier etc. I could go on, but you get my point. These are all r traits.

When we look at the mating strategies, we see r and K are flipped for the sexes from before. Men have a bias toward an r strategy and short term mating to reproduce as often as possible. Women have a bias toward a K strategy and long term mating to invest in relationships. Men have a greater preference for seeking fertile women to have short term mating with. Women have a greater preference for seeking good protectors and providers to have long term mating with. Now it is exactly at this point that people will say hang on, I can think of this example or this example that proves this is wrong. These are generalisations I am making about the sexes as overall groups. Yes of course there are a significant number of individual exceptions and significant overlap between the sexes. The natural world is grey, it is not black and white and the r/K scale reflects that. That does not mean there are not general patterns and significant overall group differences between men and women and yes research on human sexuality does find these sex differences I have outlined.

The investment in r and K mating strategies between the sexes, also does differ across the human lifespan and between environments. As mentioned the life history model of evolution goes into this in further detail. Our biology is nuanced, which is something that so many people seem to have trouble grasping, particularly female supremacists. Women in their twenties have different mating preferences to women in their thirties for instance. As women get older, they shift even further to a K mating strategy. It is also worth noting that women in riskier less safe environments without cheap birth control or easy access to reproductive medicine, generally have an even greater preference for a K mating strategy. Nonetheless even women in their twenties in the relatively safe and well off West with easy access to birth control and reproductive healthcare, have a significantly greater bias toward long term relationships and a K mating strategy over short term r strategy mating, than their male counterparts do and the available social research on human sexuality reflects that.

The biological value of men and women cannot be simply broken down into reproduction and women being supposedly more “valuable”, just because they are the rate limiting factor of reproduction. Our biology is more complicated than that and is instead primarily driven by maximising the use of the carrying capacity of our habitat (K), rather than maximising the rate of reproduction (r). The value of males and females in a biological sense is equal. Why? It all comes back to our biology requiring one male and one female to reproduce one child, thanks to the mechanics of sexual intercourse and internal fertilisation. This ensures that there is a strong and persistent evolutionary pressure to have equal numbers of reproductively capable men and women to mate with each other. Fisher’s principle explains the mathematics and the equilibrium dynamics behind why this is so. This evolutionary pressure leads to parental investment in males and females being equal. The value of something is reflected by the individuals investing in it. Parental investment in males and females is equal in the population as a whole. This is reflected by the sex ratio at birth and throughout the reproductive stage of the human lifespan, being 1:1 across the population as a whole. Parental biology ensures equal numbers of fertile males and females reach reproductive age and it does not favour greater investment in either sex. Again what I am describing are the parameters of Fishers principle, which ensures the biological equality of the sexes and has a plethora of research supporting it. Equality does not mean men and women are the same. Two things can be different but have the same value when compared to a common and relevant frame of reference. The biological value of the sexes, is best measured by how important men and women are to passing on their parents genes onto the next generation. The total number of children that men as a group and women as a group provide to their parents is equal. This is why parental investment is equal, as neither gender gives parents an extra advantage in passing on their genes.

So what is the value of men? What does it look like? The rate limiting constraint of the female uterus on reproduction (thanks to the length of human gestation), leads to an asymmetric sexual and natural selective pressure being placed exclusively on human males in the process of mating and social activity, which has led to the selection for men with K selected traits over the course of human evolution and the evolution of our hominid ancestors. These traits enhance the survival of our species, women, men, our communities and our children to adulthood. These traits consistently enhance mating opportunities and reproductive success for males much more so than for females (as women choose mates with these traits to a far greater degree than men do), which over time results in these traits becoming genetically linked to masculinity and inherited together with the male sex type.

One of the ways this has occurred in our evolution, is the development of regulatory genes on the Y chromosome that produce proteins which through direct and indirect pathways, enhance the activity of other genes on other chromosomes. The genes involved in height, muscle development and spatial ability, are some of the targets that these Y chromosome regulatory genes influence. All of these targeted genes have heightened expression in men, giving men advantages in these traits which women consistently select more so in men for mating than men do in women. These traits also enhanced male survival to a greater degree given the male tribal role, than it did for women given their different tribal role. With enhanced muscular strength, height and spatial ability, just to name a few, men became better providers, hunters and protectors, which made them more attractive to female mates and gave them better survival prospects given their tribal role. This is not sexism, this is natural selection and evolution. All of these male advantages in K traits, comes from men being exposed to certain sexual and natural selective pressures to a greater degree than women over our evolution, thanks to only women having a uterus and the constraints of gestation. This reproductive difference is why the mating criteria for women selects for men with K traits and it is also why the tribal and social roles of men and women in our prehistory and history, were what they were. It is why differences in gender roles remain even in our present modern societies, despite all of the affirmative action and social engineering of feminism. Yes we can talk about overlap in the bell curves and exceptions, but again overall sex differences remain. It is not always sexism that creates gender differences in society, including when it comes to social roles. Biology plays a significant role. Men as a group naturally gravitate to a protector and provider role to a greater degree and women as a group naturally gravitate to a caregiving and nurturing role to a greater degree. There is now ample psychological and also neurological research to support this and what has been common knowledge for centuries.

The strength of the sexual and natural selective pressures that give rise to the K traits of men, are directly proportional to the reproductive value of the female, which is in turn determined by the length of the rate limiting constraint of the female uterus with respect to gestation. Consequently the value of men to human survival which is a product of these selective pressures, is directly proportional and equal to the reproductive value of women in furthering the human genome into the future. That is why it is so laughable that some women like Maureen Dowd talk about men being “devolved” (as if that was even a scientific term). In actual fact men have been subjected to far greater evolutionary pressure than women in a number of traits that enhance overall biological fitness and female mate choice is partly to blame for it! Women can blame themselves for men being superior to them in certain attributes. Furthermore the Y chromosome that Maureen hates so much, has a number of valuable genes on it that are responsible for these male advantages. The size of a chromosome is not everything Maureen! Genetics is a little bit more complicated than that.

So in summary, the parameters of Fishers principle ensures equal numbers of reproductively capable men and women and this in conjunction with the rate limiting constraint of female reproduction, ensures a selective pressure develops that leads to men developing a survival value to the species. Female sexual hypergamy is one element of this selective pressure. Women generally choose sexual relations with men of higher social status than themselves. Female sexual hypergamy is a biological, social and historic reality and it does lead to men developing certain traits that are valuable for survival and acquiring social status, to a greater degree than women. That is why it is so amusing to see all of these women in the media harping on about women being superior to men, while there is a plethora of research showing a provable and demonstrable trend across cultures of women desiring men that have superior social status and wealth (and superiority in the traits that gave rise to their superior social status and wealth) to them. The mental gymnastics required to be so disconnected from reality is truly amazing. Just because it is politically incorrect to say women are sexually hypergamous and men consequently evolve superiority in certain traits in response to female mate choice, does not mean it is not true.

Of course if I mention women have some power over men in the sexual arena through mate choice, that suddenly then means women are superior to men right? Again just like reproduction, female sexual hypergamy is just one part of the biological equation. Men are relationally hypergamous and again there is research to prove that. This used to be common knowledge, but thanks to feminism many women are deluded into thinking they hold all of the cards in relations between the sexes, when in fact both genders hold power over each other. Women might be more selective in the sexual arena, but men are more selective in the arena of long term relationships. Men won’t just enter into and provide their provision and protection in long term relationships for any woman. They are selective in doing so. Some women have forgotten this and are left publishing articles about where all the good men went. The truth is the good men are avoiding getting into long term relationships with entitled women, particularly marriage. Furthermore the sexual market value of women depreciates with age, as does their sexual power. I will discuss all of these things further in a subsequent section of this article, on debunking the omnipotence of female sexual power. Just because a man might want sex with a woman, does not mean they want to be in a long term relationship with them.

Men and women have been subjected to different evolutionary pressures. With women that has focused around reproduction and with men it has focused around survival. The more and more you look into human biology, the more apparent it appears that you are looking at two halves of one biological unit. Like the different systems of the human body, males and females have developed into a pair bonding species that work together in unison to invest in their offspring and communities. They provide different, but equally valuable contributions to that investment. This leads me onto the final part of this section.

One new argument put forward by female supremacists is the two tribe’s scenario. This is apparently set in prehistoric or rugged/primitive times. If two tribes face some calamity and in tribe one 80% of the men die off, leaving all of the women spared and in tribe two 80% of the women die off, leaving all of the men spared, then tribe one according to female supremacists, has a greater chance of continued existence. Apparently natural selection is working on the tribe and valuing females over males. Firstly natural selection works on individuals, not on groups or tribes. Evidence for group selection is fairly weak and has been generally dismissed in modern evolutionary biology as a concept. Female supremacists argue that because there would be more women in tribe one and therefore more offspring produced, tribe one would thrive over tribe two. So basically producing a greater quantity of babies ensures tribe one will thrive over tribe two. All of human biology and evolution can be reduced to how many babies are popped out per unit of time. To me it seems pretty obvious how flimsy this argument is and yet female supremacists and other seriously confused individuals, just accept it as evidence that men are biologically disposable. Facepalm. Here are some reasons why this mental retardation and pseudoscientific nonsense can be thrown in the trash bin:

  • With so few men around in tribe one, all of the physically demanding and hazardous work required to sustain the prehistoric community, will now fall on women’s shoulders. Women are considerably less physically equipped to handle these demands and that is a scientific fact. This would lead to a substantial increase in female mortality and a decline in female health and by extension a decline in female fertility. The rate of reproduction of such a community would fall as a result.
  • For pregnant women and women raising young children and infants, they would face the same consequences as the women in the previous point made above, but to an even greater degree. This would particularly apply to women in the late stages of pregnancy and early after childbirth. All of this would lead to a rise in infant mortality and lethal complications in pregnancy for the mother and the infant.
  • Without the physical strength, fitness, risk taking, pioneering and survival traits men bring to a tribe, particularly in prehistoric times, tribe one would face greater risks of predation and other hazards and considerably less access to food, water and basic resources. There would also be less manpower to build shelter and support the tribe. All of this would increase infant mortality, mortality of the offspring before reaching adulthood and the mortality of the women themselves, especially pregnant women.
  • The offspring that were produced in tribe one and survived to adulthood, would be more malnourished from a more hazardous and resource scarce tribal upbringing, as highlighted from the previous point made above. This would lead to stunted development and negatively affect their ability to reproduce offspring in the future and attract mates. This would be particularly true for females. There is research that has been done on our past societies and the third world in the present day, which have shown that women with stunted development as a consequence of malnourishment during youth, generally give birth to babies of lower birth weight and less healthy infants and also suffer more failed and premature pregnancies.
  • Then we have the dramatic reduction in genetic diversity in the future population, thanks to so few men being around to mate and the genetic bottleneck that would produce. This would weaken the tribe’s immunity to disease and their overall health and fitness. The ability of the community to overcome infection, resource scarcity and other testing conditions in the future, would be significantly undermined as a result.

Initially I had a dozen or so points but I think the five above should suffice, so I won’t bother listing any more of them. Generally speaking if men were taken out of the picture, then the substantial value that men bring to the survival of the prehistoric tribe would go with them. The result would be higher female mortality, higher infant and childhood mortality, considerably lower rates of reproduction and sicker future adults with reduced reproductive capacity etcetera, etcetera. All of this negatively impacts the future population numbers of a tribe and the tribes continued existence. Simply having more women around does not ensure a tribe faces greater chances of thriving.

The other caveat the female supremacists will throw around, is there would be an aging population of elderly men unable to support themselves in tribe two. The fewer offspring would have to take care of the old men and this added burden would reduce the ability of the tribe to thrive and continue to exist. This reasoning is particularly amusing, because it just assumes that men and women in prehistoric times lived long enough to be physically handicapped and in need of support. Most people did not live beyond the age of 60 for most of human history (this is true for both men and women). In neither tribe one or two would there be significant numbers of men or women for that matter, that lived long enough to be a burden on the community. Virtually none of the men in tribe two would be old enough to not be able to support themselves or not contribute to the community. The “old men” of the prehistoric and primitive past (not even at retirement age by our standards), whilst a little beyond their very peak years of physical fitness in their life, were still very much at an age where they were physically capable and able. I think you would be hard pressed to find an example of a prehistoric tribe that had the luxury of aged care! Every male from about 8 to 60 years of age and even the minority that lived beyond 60, would have been working their backsides off along with their female counterparts. Everyone pulled their own weight and not doing so generally meant being banished from the tribe and that meant death for men and for women.

Another counterargument that is put forward by female supremacists, is this idea that the tribe with more women, will simply be able replace the male labour that is lacking by reproducing a new generation of males. What they conveniently leave out is that these replacement males won't reach an age to support the mostly female population and tribe until they reach at least 15 years of age. There is still a 15 year window (an eternity in prehistoric times where this scenario is set) where the female majority tribe has to fend for itself. There would still be a sharp rise in female mortality, infant mortality, youth mortality and malnourishment over a long window of time for the tribe. Again this would reduce rates of pregnancy, reduce the numbers of offspring that were produced, survived infancy and survived to sexual maturity and reduce the numbers of offspring nourished enough to be properly developed and not have reduced fertility. This is not to mention the obvious fact that substantial numbers of the very replacement males we are talking about, would either not be born (as substantial numbers of women would die before they had a chance to get pregnant or die during pregnancy itself), die in infancy or before the age of 15, or be too malnourished and underdeveloped to support the mostly female tribe. It is also worth pointing out that a counter-counterargument (pardon the pun) could be forward that the mostly male tribe could replace the female baby making that is lacking, by reproducing a new generation of females. Whilst they would be smaller in number, the female offspring would enjoy considerably greater survival prospects than offspring of the other tribe (as the female offspring while they developed into adults would have more adult male providers and protectors at hand) and substantially more would reach maturity. In addition to that reality, this generation of young women would be able to reproduce with the older men in the tribe to a considerably more successful degree than the young men in the other tribe reproducing with the older women. Many of these older women would be past their peak reproductive years after 15 years had gone past.

In summary, the success of a tribe depends not just on how many offspring are produced, but also how healthy and fit those offspring are and how many of them survive to adulthood and are healthy enough to produce offspring that will survive and reproduce themselves. The quality of offspring produced is as important as the quantity of offspring produced. It is the impact men have on their community from our prehistory to the present day, that ensures that reproductive investment actually leads to continuation of the species. You might have noticed in my description in this section, how interlinked the female value of reproduction is to the male value of survival, especially in humans. Our biology evolved that way for a reason. Feminists and their female supremacist counterparts, might want to think about that before they socially engineer society with no regard for the consequences. Tribe one might produce more babies, but tribe two has more manpower to support the tribe, the pregnant women, the young infants and children and allow women in general to maximise the use of their fertility. In other words tribe one might have better reproductive prospects, but tribe two has better survival prospects. Each tribe has an advantage over the other. As discussed before with Fishers principle and the selection dynamics at play on male evolution, the survival value of men in tribe two is equal to the reproductive value of women in tribe one. Neither tribe would thrive over the other, both would suffer major setbacks in different but equally damaging ways from losing different halves of their communities.

The problem with the two tribes scenario and other female supremacist arguments like it, is that they rely on sophistry to make what are in the real world complex biological realities appear far more simple than than really are. Biology is complex and human evolutionary biology is extremely complex. I could go on ad infinitum debunking these stupid and simplistic arguments, but at some point people need to start using their brains and seeing through the BS for themselves.

Humans are not the sort of species where reproduction can be just used interchangeably with evolutionary success. We have one of the slowest rates of development to maturity of any species on the planet and produce offspring that require arguably the highest level of parental investment. The survival value that men bring to our species, makes sure reproduction does not lead to a dead end. If reproduction is all that is required to further an individual’s genetic line, then what happens if the child produced dies before he or she reproduces? Then reproduction is all for nothing isn’t it? The genetic line ends just as it would if reproduction had not happened at all. This is why investment in activities other than reproduction to enhance the survival of the organism and it’s offspring, are just as important to evolutionary success. If reproduction is all that matters for Homo sapiens, why bother maintaining civilisation? Clearly sexual intercourse and pregnancy is not the be all and end all of our species and the many other K type species on this planet. We have evolved beyond bacteria and amoeba, because there is something else driving evolution beyond reproduction.

Reproduction is not the primary driving force of an organism. It is the optimisation of the biological investment in reproduction and survival over an organism’s lifespan, given the environmental parameters it finds itself in and its biological capabilities, that is the primary driving force. There is a certain optimal balance for a species in how much organisms should reproduce, how much they should invest in the development and raising of their offspring and in what activities they should prioritise at each stage of their lifespan. This is the life history model of evolution and modern evolutionary biology. Life is driven by the strategic optimisation of biology to ensure genes survive the passage of time. Reproduction is merely one part of that puzzle and is not the be all and end all of life.


Gender Complementarity And Trade-Offs

The genders complement each other. They are different, but their contribution and worth to the species is equal. I noted after reviewing an extensive amount of scientific literature, that most sex differences are the result of a trade-off between two traits. This is particularly true of psychological ones. If women are at an advantage in one area, that usually comes with a disadvantage relative to men in another area. An example of this is the spatial-verbal ability trade-off that has gained strong empirical support in neurological research. Another example is the continuum of systemising/empathising brains put forward by neuroscientist Prof. Simon Baron-Cohen (Sacha Baron Cohen’s cousin). We can see this with emotion as well. Research has shown that after a traumatic evident, women are more likely to be supportive, empathise with others and talk it over. Centers in the brain associated with empathy and communication become active. This makes sense given women’s group environment in prehistoric communities. Men on the other hand after a traumatic evident, are more likely to start problem solving and the associated areas of the brain involved in problem solving become active. Both genders feel fear and anxiety, however this triggers different responses in women and men. Each response is advantageous in the right context.

Nature has evolved two brains and two bodies for completely different roles based on differences in reproductive biology, history and evolution. The sexual dimorphism between the genders grew to the extent that it did because of the long period of gestation (9 months). Men have evolved to be the provider and protector and women the nurturer. Men are not superior to women and women are not superior to men. That is nonsense when you consider our evolution. The only description that makes sense, is that we evolved to have different roles and clearly those roles are equally important to the species. That is demonstrated by the equal investment our biology makes in producing the two genders. The sex ratio at birth is 1:1 for a reason.


Male Sacrifice

“But wait!” I hear female supremacists say! Men are sacrificing their lives for us and the community, clearly they are of less value and are more disposable. No, wrong again. That sacrifice that men are making has value and those men are not disposable and nor is their associated sacrifice. Without men sacrificing their lives and putting themselves in harms way, women would have been dead very quickly and so would have been the community. The change in the way we have framed male sacrifice in the last four decades, is telling of the pathology that exists in our society. In modern times we frame male sacrifice as a sign men are of less value than women. A century ago, our society recognised the value of male sacrifice and the value of the men making that sacrifice. We treated them as heroes. That is why male privilege existed. It was societal recognition of the value of men to the survival of society and the sacrifices they made. Feminism would have us believe such recognition was undeserved. What a slap in the face! This is why men are dropping out of society. We are still expected to perform the difficult roles, do the hazardous jobs and take on all the responsibility and accountability and yet we are not given respect for it. It is analogous to women being robbed of motherhood.

The flaw in viewing male sacrifice and men taking on the risks as evidence of male biological disposability and the supposedly low biological value of men (both of which are bogus claims about men), can be seen with another example female supremacists refer to. You have two people in a burning building, one is a woman and the other is a man. Who do you save? Many people apparently say the woman in the social science survey (such social surveys can be quite unreliable and skewed research instruments) and then female supremacists erroneously claim and just assume that this bias in people's choices, is evidence that women’s lives have more value than men's lives. No, wrong again. People save the woman first because she is more likely to die as she is physically weaker than a man. We are instinctually predisposed to viewing women as the more vulnerable sex (because they physically are) and we act accordingly. It is not because they are more valuable. The male has a higher probability of surviving if we leave him in the burning building and come back later. Therefore the optimum strategy in that situation is to save the woman, as she has less chance of surviving on her own. We have a higher chance of coming out with both alive, rather than one live male and one dead female if we apply such a strategy.

This same rescue strategy and instinct to preferentially help the more vulnerable, still applies if we reverse the gender and this time have a 4 year old boy in the burning building and a 32 year old woman. This time people save the boy. Why? The boy is more vulnerable and we are instinctually predisposed to help the more vulnerable first. We generally associate heroism to people that save the more vulnerable. Traditionally that has been a male pursuit. Hence the abundance of male fire-fighters, rescue workers, coast guard, military, police and so forth. Men are hardwired to protect the more vulnerable, not the more valuable! This is why we lump women and children together with comments such as, "women and children first" in disasters like the Titanic. Vulnerability is the core theme and it drives men's protective instincts. Have you ever wondered why women have evolved a neotenous face or why women are attracted to men with broad shoulders and firm muscular builds? This is why.

Now let’s say we know that both the adult man and woman in the burning building have an equal chance of death. Who do we save now? Then it becomes a coin toss. Why? Because if we save the woman, we lose the survival value the man provides the community with. The 1:1 sex ratio tells us this is equivalent to the reproductive value of the woman. If the man died in the primitive times we evolved in, then that would have been one less person fighting off predators, one less person hunting, one less person fighting off hostile tribes, one less person available to do the physically demanding and hazardous work for the community, one less person to build shelter and one less person providing for pregnant or considerably less physically capable women. The negative impacts of men dying, would have placed prehistoric communities in danger of being eradicated by the hostile environments they found themselves in. Men have often been the difference between extinction and the continued perpetuation of the human race. Nature tells us that the loss of one male life is equivalent to losing one female life, because our biology invests equally in producing each gender (again see the discussion earlier regarding the 1:1 sex ratio and the evolutionary dynamics that produced it). If we make a decision that favours one gender over the other, then other factors aside from the inherent biological contribution of the individual have to come into account.

In some environments you might want to be saving a man’s life every time. If the community is constantly fighting off predators, then the community may not be able to afford losing a man. Saving a woman means another mouth to feed and other person to be provided for. The environment does play a role in influencing the decision. In some circumstances saving women becomes the best practical option. However it appears that overall, the life of a man and a woman is equal from a biological standpoint.


The Myth Of The Disposability Of Men And Fatherhood

Some female supremacists argue men are just sperm dispensers in reproduction and disposable after sex. That is like me saying women are just incubators in reproduction and disposable after pregnancy. How would you feel if I said that? I am sure I would never hear the end of that argument! With good reason too I might add. We know that fathers are not disposable in the family. How do we know this? Because of the evidence and research that has been done on children coming out of the epidemic of single mother households.

Boys without fathers are more likely to drop out of school, perform poorly academically, have learning problems, engage in criminal activity, become violent, earn a low income, become unemployed, commit suicide and much much more. Girls without fathers are more likely to have body image problems, become pregnant during adolescence, have eating disorders, engage in criminal activity, have conflict with their mothers, earn a low income and become dependent on welfare, divorce and become single mothers themselves. Both genders show a substantially greater risk of developing mental illness, particularly depression and anxiety. The incidence of behavioural problems and substance abuse also increases substantially in both genders. The masculine influence on the family is not disposable and the evidence and research is there now to prove it. Unfortunately for two entire generations of children and soon to be a third, the news has come too late. Now we are seeing the impact that is having on society and it is going to get a heck of a lot worse. The London riots are just the beginning. The fallout from fatherless homes on it's own, has the potential to lead to social and economic collapse as a consequence of the dysfunctional young adults it later produces. To investigate the consequences and causes of fatherlessness further, please start with this excellent video series on the subject. There is also an excellent presentation people should consult which is linked here, about the epidemic of single mother and fatherless households. The presentation covers a mountain of empirical data showing the scale of the problem in the West and a detailed examination of the plethora of research showing the extensive list of serious and long lasting social and economic consequences of removing fathers from their children.

Men are neurologically programmed to be involved in the parenting of their offspring and children require fatherhood involvement, for proper psychological, social, physiological and neurological development. In fact according to one meta-analysis prepared by Dr. Warren Farrell, there are more than 30 areas in which children uniquely benefit from father involvement (he initially identified 23 in his original study and has found 7 more since then from subsequent analysis). They even include biological factors, including surprisingly the proper physiological development and optimum biological timing of puberty in girls (male pheromones are postulated to be a likely mechanism of action), which prevents premature development and the host of associated health problems (breast cancer being one) that arise from it later on in women's lives. Human biology is far more complex and interconnected then we could have ever imagined! It is also interesting to note, that Dr. Farrell also found from his analysis which he published in his book Father And Child Reunion, that children from single father households were actually doing better in life outcomes, general physical and mental health and social adjustment than children from single mother households. There is also a plethora of other research studies and evidence from other academics and institutions, all confirming that fathering is crucial for raising children and that fathers bring a unique contribution to parenting which does have biological and neurological roots.

It makes sense that fatherhood exists. Children do not fully mature until 18 and their brains don’t stop development until 25. Teaching their sons on how to mature into men and teaching their daughters on how to relate to men and boys in a healthy way, is a crucial role played by fathers. Furthermore, a male that left the family shortly after pregnancy in primitive times would have put his children at risk. Due to the slow maturation of human offspring and the prolonged dependency of children on parents for survival, fatherhood evolved as a matter of necessity. This is especially true given the physical vulnerability of women and the higher survival value of men. If a man left the family, he left the mother and his children at risk of predators, hostile tribes, starvation and lack of shelter etc. This may explain why historically it was frowned upon for a man to abandon his children. In fact one of the reasons men were given sole control over assets and property, was because historically it was men and not women that were legally obligated to provide for the children and the wife. The wife had no legal obligation to provide for her own children!

Again this comes back to our traditional roles and our evolution. Women have traditionally not been expected to provide, hence they were not legally obligated to provide for their children. That was the man’s job. Now of course we expect men to do the same thing while we exclude him from his own offspring. No wonder men start failing to pay child support! We have broken the paternal bond with their children and inhibited their natural instinct to protect and provide for them. So no I don’t even remotely agree that men are merely sperm dispensers and disposable after sex. Nature does not see it that way, current research does not see it that way and neither did society for most of recorded human history. It is simply not the case that fathers are less important to creating and raising children than mothers and it is not supported by the research. The genders contribute different things to producing and raising children, but neither men or women are the more important parent. Unsurprisingly, the research confirms that the best interests of the child are met with the equal involvement of both a father and a mother. We are a pair bonding species for very good biological, neurological and reproductive reasons.

On a final note on this subject, I find the ignorance of the role of men in reproduction and the blind worship of women by female supremacists, as if women are solely the creators of life, to be highly amusing. Amusing because of the scale of the stupidity required to ignore basic biology. Women do not create life, men and women as a couple create life. Men make women mothers. Without men, there is no motherhood and there is no creation of life. Without men, the uteri of women have zero reproductive value. Do I really need to teach female supremacists about the birds and the bees? If you want to worship motherhood, it might be worth remembering that it was men that made motherhood possible in the first place. Motherhood is not a right, it is privilege and not all women are worthy of being mothers (and neither are all men worthy of being fathers). Motherhood is a gift that men give women and fatherhood is a gift women give men. This is a reality that I think many people have forgotten in our society of female entitlement. When it comes to my capacity as a man to produce children, my female counterparts are entitled to absolutely nothing. Motherhood is something to be earned, I won't just make anyone a mother.


The Myth Women Have More Power Over Men

There is this idea that women are superior to men, based on some argument that men want sex more than women. You know female supremacists are clutching at straws when they bring up the male sex drive! I love this argument. They think that because men are driven to protect and provide for women and society, that we are somehow doormats and that we are slaves to our sexual instincts. No, wrong again. This makes me laugh it really does.

I will go back to our evolutionary biology. Men and women evolved a certain ratio in the transaction of reproductive value (female pregnancy and child rearing) and survival value (male provision and protection). A transaction which historically was the basis of marriage. Men owned a woman’s sexuality and fertility and men were in turn legally obligated to provide for women and the children. The ratio of sex to survival value was based on the optimum exchange rate we evolved to perpetuate the species. A certain unit of survival value a man provided to a woman, was worth a certain unit of sex a woman provided to a man. The neurobiological instincts and perceptual processes of men and women which influence our behaviour, regulate this ratio to maximise biological investment and reproductive payoff. It is worth noting though, that sex provided by women on it's own, has very little biological value in an evolutionary sense. One round of sexual intercourse, does not guarantee pregnancy, furthering of a males genetic lineage, or the mothering of his offspring until they mature and can reproduce themselves. Consequently, the survival value men have evolved to exchange for just sex on it's own, is very little. Aside from sex, men have been programmed to require many other things in exchange for the survival value they provide to women. Such things include pregnancy, mothering/child rearing, love, emotional support, fair treatment, respect and domestic or financial support (depending on the household). Furthermore, it is also worth noting that the sex men provide women with has value and allows women to further their genetic lineage. So at the end of the day, sex provided by women on it's own, is not really something that men are hardwired to exchange much survival value for. For many men, this exchange equates to just a free drink for sex and very often not even that. In contrast, men will exchange working full time for their wife and family for 30 plus years for instance, for women getting pregnant, wives looking after their children for them, women managing family matters and providing domestic and emotional support etc to men, in addition to sex and intimacy. Again reality is not as simple as female supremacists would have everyone believe.

Furthermore, it is worth considering this exchange dynamic in our evolutionary past. A man in primitive prehistoric times that did not get a fair deal in the exchange of sex and support etc for his survival value, looked elsewhere for a mate. If a man provided more survival value than the sex and support he got, then there was a natural selective pressure against him. Why? Because the men that got a fairer deal had more offspring than he did and contributed more to the future genome and over time the man that got exploited died out. This explains why so many young men are now boycotting the financial exploitation and extortion scheme of the modern marriage-divorce-family court pipeline in Western society. It is partly why there is a men’s human rights movement and why there are men like me talking about things like this. The situation is unfair and myself like a growing number of men are becoming aware of this at an instinctual level. So no we do not blindly serve women. We expect something in return and we expect the exchange to be fair. If we perceive that we are being exploited, we will leave and find another partner. Sex and a relationship with any particular women, does have a finite biological value (not an infinite value) for men and beyond that price, men are neurologically programmed to shift their efforts to more efficient investments in other activities (men won't do anything for sex in other words). Reproductive investment must be efficient to avoid species extinction and humans are no exception.

Of course female supremacists will argue back that women are choosier than men. Yes women are choosier than men during the initial stages of mating or dating. However after the initial stages of the relationship when the couples settle in, men become the choosier sex. We can see this play out in women’s cries about men failing to commit, men having affairs, women’s concerns about their man straying and their concerns over their partners drop in interest in them. In these relationships men are unsatisfied. They are judging the situation, finding the transaction unfair and looking for other mating opportunities.

Why is this so? Again evolutionary biology. The optimum mating strategy for a male is to have sex with as many women as possible (in primitive times when our current neurobiology developed). He does not have to wait for 9 months to have another crack at producing a child. So the only incentive for him to stay in a long term relationship, is if the woman he is with is giving him enough opportunities to have sex and also participate in raising his offspring to offset the opportunity cost of not playing the field. For women the optimum mating strategy is entirely different (again in primitive times when our current neurobiology developed). For a woman she cannot spend too much energy seeking mates, as she is more physically vulnerable than the male. Hence she waits for a man to come her way. As she has only one shot at producing offspring every nine months, she has to carefully select the partner during the initial stages of mating. If she gets it wrong, the reproductive cost to her is much greater than it is for a man. During pregnancy she is even more vulnerable than normal, particularly during the late stages of pregnancy and the early stages after childbirth. Therefore optimally she wants the man to stay around and provide for her after sex, during the pregnancy and in early motherhood. She can’t be running from predators with an infant in her arms. So the optimum mating strategy for a woman is a long term relationship. This why study after study shows men prefer casual sex more than women do and that women prefer relationships more than men do.

Women are choosier during the initial stages of courtship. However men start to judge the worth of the relationship with greater scrutiny than women once the relationship becomes long term. Remember there is an opportunity cost for men in staying in a long term relationship. Sure initially a man has to woo a woman. However if a woman does not woo a man over the course of their relationship, our neurobiology says the man will leave. He gains considerably less by staying in a long term relationship from a biological perspective.

Ideally both genders want to stay around until the child reaches adulthood, hence the institution of fatherhood alongside motherhood. However for men there is an asymmetry compared to women, because men take on an opportunity cost if they stay. Women must provide enough reproductive opportunities and involvement for the male in raising his own offspring, to offset the opportunity cost of not spreading his seed. Otherwise men have a higher biological incentive to be in short term relationships. Perhaps now people can see how divorce and family court are completely destroying women’s chances of finding a husband. “Where have all the good men gone?”, the women are crying out. For men there is no incentive to be in a long term relationship in this society. Men understand this on an instinctual, biological and conscious level. Why bother starting a family when you will be used and abused like a parasite sucking blood from its host?

This leads me onto my next point. Women might use sex to manipulate men, but men use their wealth, career potential and social status to manipulate women. The term "trophy wife" was invented for a reason. I am yet to see a famous male singer, athlete, actor or wealthy businessman that does not have a good looking wife and a host female groupies following them. How else does Mick Jagger sleep with a thousand women? Female supremacists think they control a man by their genitals. Misogynists think that women can be bought and paid for like commodities. Heck we even have rich men up in Queensland here in Australia, effectively buying young 20 something women by paying for their university courses in exchange for a relationship. How superficial is that? Sure men can lose their minds when they see a beautiful supermodel. Women can lose their minds over men too, just for different reasons. Sex appeal is replaced with fame and money. Justin Bieber anyone? How about George Clooney? Don’t tell me Hugh Hefner, Donald Trump or Mick Jagger have their choice of beautiful women around them based on their looks! Men and women manipulate each other. Both exercise power over each other. Both are partly motivated by superficial instincts. Some men just want sex and some women are just trophy wives! The average man might ogle an average woman’s breasts. However the average woman might ogle an average man’s wallet, the car he drives, the watch he wears and the job he has. Don’t tell me women don’t do that, I see them do it everyday.

What is worth noting in particular, is that the bargaining chip women have over men depreciates with their age. The sex appeal of women peaks at an early age and deteriorates over time. Conversely the bargaining chip men have over women appreciates with their age. The wealth men produce and accumulate increases over time, as does their social status, career potential and also arguably their attractive, rugged and hard masculine features (biological cues that signal to the female brain the man is a good provider and mate). So men enjoy greater and greater bargaining power as time goes on. So no, women do not hold all the strings like they think they do. Power resides in both genders and increasingly in men as people age (listen to this Leykis segment). As one evolutionary psychologist put it, time is not on women's side. Hence the reason why feminists have altered the divorce and family court process to counter this effect and heavily biased them in women's favour. What they fail to realise is that men will simply stop marrying and starting families. Why bother when you are essentially treated like a slave under the law? Men will play the field. Older women that demand an unfair relationship will be dumped for younger more attractive women. This is already happening now. Hence the cries, “Where did all the good men go?”. Many came, saw and didn’t like what was on offer so they hooked up with the newer model. Again research has proven that men have a higher preference for casual sex than women do and show less interest in relationships. For every action there is a reaction. If you push people hard enough there will be a blacklash and we are seeing a male blacklash. Female greed is rebounding right back at women.

I have one final point on the subject of women having power over men because of sex. How do homosexual men, sexually dominant men, asexual men and MGTOWs (or men going their own way, some of which no longer want anything to do with women in general thanks to circulating pathological beliefs in our culture like female superiority and a prevalent female entitlement mentality) fit in with the female supremacy fiction of female sexual power over men? Funny how female supremacists also gloss over sexually submissive women (50 Shades of Grey anyone? Listen to this Leykis segment as well) and people in very traditional relationships. All of these groups of people apparently don't exist according to female supremacists. But I am sure female supremacists will conjure up some escape hatch argument to explain it all away and keep their delusional doctrine of their cult going along. Reality can always wait another day...Wake up! Human sexuality is far, far too diverse in either gender to be explained by notions of female superiority.


The Myth That Men Are Redundant

With feminism and technology some women like female supremacists, have got it into their heads that men are redundant, finished or obsolete (see this article for further information). This could not be further from the truth in modern times. Firstly if our modern gynocentric social system and media was not on the side of such bigots, then none of this nonsensical garbage would be being uttered. Secondly this gynocentric system is going to collapse, because it is inherently unfair and maladaptive to our evolutionary psychology and biology. The social cohesion that is keeping society together will erode and women are going to find there are professions where they cannot replace men. Who will maintain our infrastructure? Who will keep the electrical grid, telecommunications system, water supply, sewage system, gas supply or the massive energy, mining, agricultural and transport systems running? Last time I checked men dominated engineering, computer science, physics, mathematics and the hard sciences. Basically the areas that run our world are dominated by men. So men are not redundant and it is still mostly men that are behind designing, building, maintaining and repairing virtually all the technology that women and the rest of society take for granted. Despite decades of feminism and affirmative action that has not changed. Why? I suspect because of our biology and our psychology. We evolved differently and are suited to different roles. Some male roles will just not suit women and vice versa. Research has shown a significant cross-cultural (indicating a biological cause) preference in men for the "thing" oriented professions and in women a preference for the "people" oriented professions. Prenatal exposure to testosterone has been implicated as the key candidate behind this cross-cultural phenomenon, based on Prof. Simon Baron-Cohen's research (and others).

Oh and by the way, if you think technology can make men redundant through automation, I have news for these female supremacists, technology can make women redundant too. As already mentioned, advances in reproductive science have made it possible for us to construct an artificial womb. The research has been was highly successful and was only terminated due to ethical guidelines. Feminists have voiced outrage at it because they know what it means. The reproductive value of women and the female role can be replaced with technology. Both genders can be replaced with technology. The funny thing is feminism is dead silent about making men redundant. We have books spruiking about the "End Of Men" for pete’s sake. If it is the end of men, it is the end of women too. The interdependence we have for each other goes beyond our primitive evolutionary roles. This is why an increasing number of women are joining the men’s human rights movement. They see the connection and they know what is on the horizon.


Female Supremacists Like Making Lists, Here Is A List Of My Own

I could go tit for tat all day over every single one of these delusional female supremacist arguments. The reality of the situation is that either they speak half truths, blatant lies, cherry pick research or use seriously flawed reasoning. If you are sexually dominant and a female supremacist, stop trying to justify imposing your beliefs on everyone else. Keep your sexual practices and thoughts in the bedroom and away from the public and don’t involve children!

Since female supremacists seem to enjoy making lists of all the areas where women are superior to men, I thought I would make a list of my own. These are by no means all of the male advantages, just a relatively short sample:

Female supremacist’s go on about men, disease and genetics. Here are a few points to consider:

  • Women are more genetically predisposed to suffer from autoimmune diseases than men.
  • Women are more genetically predisposed to developing osteoporosis.
  • Women are more genetically predisposed to depression and anxiety than men. Social effects are present but a greater genetic predisposition in women has been found.
  • Women are also more genetically predisposed to dementia, including but not limited to Alzheimer’s.
  • Women are more genetically predisposed to pain related disorders, arthritis, migraines and who could forget, period pain! This has to do with their immune systems and pain receptors (in the case of period pain reproductive biology).

Female supremacists go on and on about intellect, here are a few points for you:

  • In terms of general intelligence, most well controlled studies do not show a significant sex difference in the averages (or mean). However when a sex difference has been observed, most of the time a male advantage in the averages of general intelligence of between 3-5 IQ points has been reported.
  • Whilst there is little or no difference in the averages of general intelligence of each gender, things get different towards the tail end of the distribution. Studies show that men are several times more likely than women to have an IQ above 140, or the intelligence that classifies one as a genius. It gets even more skewed in men's favour for IQ's above 160. This male dominance in the upper ranges of IQ, is consistently observed in intelligence research. This is why there are a lot more Einstein's than Marie Curie's in the world, even after decades of feminism and affirmative action.
  • Studies measuring specific aspects of intelligence, show men have greater spatial intelligence, quantitative reasoning, mechanical aptitude and what is termed comprehension-knowledge than women on average.
  • There is a substantial body of research, which indicates that men have a greater cognitive capacity for abstract thinking than women do on average.
  • Men have greater spatial memory than women and are also more likely to remember the rules (social or otherwise) underlying an event (women remember details, men remember the rules and tactics involved). This is useful in combat, negotiation, hunting, sports, and strategic planning in business and government just to name a few.
  • When faced with a traumatic evident such as an emergency, problem solving centers in the brain become more active in men. This is not seen in women (Women instead show activity in areas associated with empathy and communication). Women and men offer different contributions in a crisis. Depending on the situation one might be preferable to another.
  • At the top level of performance (the top 2% or so), men dominate most intellectual pursuits as they do in the top percentiles for general intelligence and this is especially so for mathematics.
  • Do I need to mention PMS and how often hormones and so forth are used to justify virtually every irrational mood swing of women when it is that time of the month? Lol. Men are not prone to such cyclical monthly bouts of irrational behaviour. As one woman put it that I came across, she did not want to see a world that is all run by women, because the thought of them all on PMS was to her a nightmare! Lol.

I notice female supremacists generally go silent when we talk about anything physical. Here are some obvious facts that would not be news to many people:

  • Men are physically stronger and aerobically fitter than women.
  • Men have a greater bone density than women and are less likely to suffer osteoporosis.
  • Our bones also tend to be thicker and our ligaments and joints more robust. Joint problems, particularly issues with the knee are more common in women.
  • Men heal from wounds faster than women and have a higher peripheral pain tolerance.
  • Men have thicker skulls than women (no pun intended!) and recover more easily from concussion.
  • Men have greater depth perception, long range vision, see better in bright light and even have been shown to have better hearing for certain types of sounds (women show an advantage in other areas of sight and hearing).
  • Men store less fat than women and are less likely to develop obesity. We use more of our metabolic intake to build muscle mass.
  • Men also have a higher metabolic rate than women.
  • Men can more easily break substance addictions than women. Sex differences in brain microstructure and neurochemistry have been implicated. One example of this is seen in smoking, with women having a harder time on average giving up.
  • Men can drink more alcohol and generally speaking can more readily tolerate intoxication of poisons, dangerous drugs and hazardous chemical compounds.
  • Men are more efficient at producing offspring. We can father hundreds of children in the same time frame a woman produces one child.
  • Men don't have periods or a menstrual cycle to deal with. Men don't die in the process of reproduction either.

On the subject of records and achievement, female supremacists also like to gloss over male ingenuity and natural talent as if it is due to some ethereal bias in society favouring men. This is due to their erroneous belief men are somehow "privileged" today in modern society thanks to the "patriarchy" and the supposedly superior female sex is oppressed by the supposedly inferior male sex. This is a major nonsensical contradiction in and of itself and also betrays the feminist influence in their cult. If anyone is given a leg up or special advantages in our Western societies today solely because of their gender, it is mostly women and not men.

  • Despite decades of affirmative action, female centered "equality" policies, women's programs and representatives and ideological feminist influence, men still comprise the current majority of nobel laureates, fields medallists, patent holders, inventors, leading thinkers, leading entrepreneurs, famous writers, chess champions and mind sports olympiad and mental and memory calculation record holders.
  • Despite decades of affirmative action, female centered "equality" policies, women's programs and representatives and ideological feminist influence, men still hold the vast majority of records in any sport or physical activity you care to name. None of this has changed or is changing after decades of ideological feminist influence on the state and society.

Sometimes female supremacists discuss personality, aggression or emotion. Here are a few points:

  • Studies on personality traits show that men score considerably higher than women on social dominance, emotional stability and venturesomeness and that men are less risk averse than women. I will leave people to wonder where such traits would put men at an advantage relative to women. Where would humanity be for instance if we never dared to take risks and always played it safe? Humans would have never left Africa. Risk taking or low risk aversion is not an automatic vice and has been crucial in moving humanity forward. We often hear of men failing when they take risks, but what about the men that achieved great milestones by taking risks? Landing on the moon, space travel and making the first flight all come to mind. The lower risk aversion of men has been a key driving factor in human exploration, discovery and the advancement of civilisation. Now that was just looking at one of the personality traits I mentioned above. Now think about men's greater score on emotional stability and the advantages that gives men over women. Masculinity is not a deficiency or a mistake, it has been and continues to be a very important part of human nature.
  • Women are three times more likely to be diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD) than men.
  • Men show a substantially greater interest in the "thing" or technology oriented professions. This gender difference has been shown to be cross-cultural and likely to have biological underpinnings. I will leave people to ponder the importance of what is mostly male engineers, information technology experts, physicists, chemists and mathematicians, in a society run by technology designed and constructed mostly by men.
  • Despite what people think, there is considerable research to suggest actual levels of aggression and altruistic behaviour do not differ between the genders. What does differ is how they are expressed or the style of expression and this has been shown to be mostly related to socialisation. Lets look at aggression as one example. Whilst men are more likely to display aggression physically, women are far more likely to display relational aggression (see the movie Gone Girl for an example). Relational aggression can leave psychological scars just as deep as the physical injuries of physical aggression and it does drive a significant number of victims to suicide. Relational aggression can also lead to female violence by proxy. What is female violence by proxy? A false accusation from a vengeful woman for instance, can and has led to people physically assaulting and even killing men. Having said all of that, aggression is not always a bad thing and altruistic behaviour is not always a good thing. Being very altruistic can expose individuals to exploitation. Being aggressive can enhance ones survival prospects in hostile environments, increase the chances of success in certain forms of negotiation/bargaining and can also be useful in dealing with competitive environments (which are abundant even in the modern world, particularly in business).

Now does all of this make men superior to women? Absolutely not. I could draw up a similar list for women. What it does show is that anyone can assemble a list of facts just like a female supremacist does and instead build some case for male superiority. These differences reflect the complementarity between the genders. Men have strengths in areas where women are weak and women have strengths in areas where men are weak. This is because we have had different but complementary evolutionary roles. Talking about female superiority or it's male equivalent is nonsense.

A few rebuttals over poor arguments made by female supremacists:

  • Whilst women live on average 5-7 years longer than men in the modern world, research indicates that this is primarily due to the different social roles of men and women. In Sardinia for instance, where social scientists have observed that labour (not physical, but overall labour) between the genders has been far more evenly distributed and comparable in nature, men and women live till the same age. In fact in the 1920s in the West women only lived 1-2 years more than men and at the start of the 20th century the life expectancy gap was non-existent. Today in some Western countries, the gender difference in life expectancy is shortening and going back to what it once was. For instance, in the UK the life expectancy gap has closed from 6.5 to 4.5 years over the last 30 years.
  • The myth men are inherently more violent than women is starting to become exposed for what it is, a myth. Numerous reports are coming in from all over the Western world on the dramatic increase in violent crime among women relative to men. In New South Wales (Australia) for instance, violent crime among young women has grown at 4 times the rate compared to young men in the last decade. Similar trends (some even more alarming) are being observed in Canada and the UK just to name a few places. As the old gender stereotypes start to break down, the enormous role socialisation has played in creating the sexual dimorphism traditionally seen in the expression of aggression is starting to show. Despite the feminist propaganda on domestic violence, numerous studies show women are just as likely (sometimes more likely) as men to be physically violent toward their partner. In terms of child abuse, a large amount of the perpetrators are actually women. Women also can and do rape and sexually assault men. Despite what people think, decades of scientific research on aggression has failed to prove a causal link between testosterone and aggression. Aggression seems to arise from a very complex interplay between many neurological and environmental factors. Moreover, we have barely begun to properly understand this process in humans. It is far more complicated than blaming aggression in humans on the male hormone. For further information discussing how women can be just as violent as men, please consult this article on female domestic violence and this article on female rape and child abuse.
  • Just on the subject of domestic violence, it is worth noting based on the peer reviewed academic research, that lesbian relationships show the highest incidence of physical abuse, followed by heterosexual relationships and then gay relationships with the lowest incidence of domestic violence. Women are also more likely to initiate or start physical violence where the domestic violence is reciprocal and where the violence only involves one partner being violent, women are 70% of the prepetrators. Don't believe me? Watch this video going through the associated academic research and then consult my article on female domestic violence that I linked earlier in the previous paragraph. Female violence is a serious social issue and it needs to be recognised and not blown under the rug. Why do we tell only one gender to keep their hands to themselves? The lies on domestic violence are staggering and the profit motive to keep propagating the lies and associated corruption is high. Female perpetrated sexual abuse of boys and adult men is also far more common than people realise. Women sexually abusing boys and adult men, makes up a substantial chunk of overall sexual violence and is not a tiny fraction of overall sexual abuse in society at all. I know it is shocking, it shocked me. Don't believe that it could be true? Listen to this video interview with Dr. Philip. W. Cook on female perpetrated sexual abuse of adult men (yes you read correctly-adult men) and read his book on the subject with co-author Dr. Tammy Hodo, "When Women Sexually Abuse Men". Then consult my article on female rape and sexual abuse of children, that I linked earlier in the previous paragraph and the video on female pedophilia that I included in that article. The cultural myths we have about both physical and sexual violence being a male perpetrated phenomenon, do not have a leg to stand on as far as the research and empirical evidence on the subject is concerned. We all need a major reality check on these serious issues, for the sake of the health of our societies. These problems are not gendered issues, they go beyond gender.
  • Where does the demonisation of men come from? Painting men as inherently violent and demonising masculinity, has been the signature trademark of the feminist movement for at least 25-35 years. I would highly recommend that people consult this video, which raises a number of interesting and valid objections to the nonsensical and bigoted attempt to portray masculinity as monstrous and deviant. It is worth noting that many of the women who claim that masculinity is the source of all violence, have encouraged or carried out violence themselves. Want some examples? See exhibit A, exhibit B, exhibit C and exhibit D for just a small sample. Where does the hate come from? Read this article to find out. In short, radical feminists and man hating bigots might want to have a look in the mirror first, before portraying masculinity as inherently violent. People might also want to have a look at horrible cases of abuse like this and murderous acts like this, before they make blanket generalisations that women are angels and men are demons. Again, ignoring the reality that women can be just as violent as men, is not good for men or women. Too many terrible acts of abuse have been carried out, partly because of people refusing to accept the reality of female violence.

  • Young women and girls doing better academically is not evidence of their superiority. The education system in the West has been heavily weighted against young men and boys for at least three decades now. We have had a number of studies demonstrate the bias against boys in education and how the gender achievement gap disappears when you remove that bias. Female teachers for instance have been found to grade boys more harshly than girls, even when closer investigation on standardised tests finds their actual academic performance to be equivalent. Another study has found evidence of the pygmalion effect on boys academic performance in our schools. Girls and teachers think women are smarter than men and this attitude has been shown to negatively effect boys academic performance in the classroom (similar findings were reported for girls lower academic performance in the 1960s). Other research has found that the gender achievement gap disappears when you home school both genders. The researchers suggested that this indicates a clear bias against boys in the public school system. There are many more studies on this subject I could bring up. Professor Christina Hoff Sommers, author of the book "The War Against Boys", has discussed the bias against boys in our education systems at length and I have written 8 Hubs about it myself (which can be reached via my Hub Profile). My point is that you cannot explain the dramatic decline in boy’s academic performance in modern times relative to their past performance (let alone the decline in boy’s academic performance relative to girls), as evidence of female superiority. Boys did not suddenly become stupid overnight! They are not stupid, they have been systematically marginalised in our feminised education systems, as a consequence of the last three decades of feminist social engineering and lopsided gynocentric education policies. From my experience as a former male gen Y student, boys academic performance is sharply declining in modern times because they are considerably less motivated and engaged in their schooling. In my opinion the causes of the motivational gap between the genders in education includes: the classroom environment, curriculum, lack of male role models, culture and socialisation, a self-fulfilling prophecy and the one option male vs the multi-option female in modernity.
  • Whilst there is a boy crisis in education, men are still overrepresented in advanced placement studies for a variety of subjects. Men continue to dominate and excel in engineering, physics, chemistry, the other hard sciences, mathematics, computer science, finance and economics etcetera despite years of feminism and affirmative action. Many men do not go to university because they want to learn practical skills instead. Hence the dominance of male industrial electricians, plumbers, builders, mechanics and so forth. These are professions that require a high degree of skill and technical knowledge. You actually have to be fairly intelligent to do these highly technical jobs. They also pay very well. University is not the only way to become a skilled worker or professional and neither is it the only place where you find intelligent people!
  • On the subject of memory, research is very conflicted. It is not as simple as making sweeping generalisations that women have better memories than men. For some forms of memory females show an advantage and in other forms of memory a male advantage is found. Even when discussing the same form of memory, studies contradict each other. One study might show a male advantage and another study might show a female advantage on exactly the same form of memory. Making bold statements like women have better memories than men, is incredibly inaccurate and misleading.
  • Following on from the point above, most gender research in the fields of psychology and neurology in general show conflict. For a lot of traits, abilities or disabilities, there are many contradictions in the research as to whether it is men or women that show a specific advantage in a given area. Thus I cannot emphasise enough, the fallacy in making bold statements based on cherry picking evidence. Many of the gender differences cited from various studies contradict other research in the exact same area. Many psychological and neurological sex differences are far from being conclusively proven. Even some reported genetic and physiological sex differences show conflict in the related research literature on them.
  • Last but not least, to say something is inherent or innate does not imply that men or women cannot perform as well as the opposite sex in that area. When something is inherent, what scientists mean is that there a genetic predisposition to developing some trait, ability or disability. That does not mean the said trait, ability or disability, will automatically be more common in one gender over the other. The environment influences what aspects of a person's genetic potential become realised during their lifetimes. For instance, a boy might actually develop greater verbal fluency than most girls simply through learning and practice. The same applies vice versa. Genes and the environment are inextricably linked in a complex interaction that we are only just starting to understand. Furthermore, as already discussed the latest neurological research is showing that through epigenetic mechanisms even what is genetic is not fixed or set in stone. Treating genetic and environmental factors as separate influences (i.e nature vs nurture), simply does not reflect reality or our more modern understanding of developmental biology (particularly when we start talking about the brain).


A Word On Ashley Montagu

Taking arguments from Ashley’s Montagu’s “The Natural Superiority Of Women”, does not prove your point anymore than me taking arguments from Dick Masterson’s book, “Men Are Better Than Women”. Anyone can cite the selective reporting of their chosen biased expert to give a misleading appearance of veracity to their claims. It does not make your claims any more true if you base your citations from skewed sources and then ignore the vast amount of sources and data that paint a different overall picture. In that context female supremacists and climate change deniers are the same sort of people. They refer to a handlful of so-called "experts" and then ignore the majority of what their peers say which present opposing evidence and research.

I am one of the few men that has probably read Montagu’s nonsensical diatribe. A book that at the time was criticised by the scientific community, particularly I note among psychiatric journals. Criticism has still been forthcoming to this day and there is a plethora of scientific research that refutes or contradicts many of his arguments. However we must remember Montagu was an anthropologist and not an expert in a number of the fields in which he cited in his book. Secondly the book was first published in 1953 and the last revised edition was made in 1999. Much of what he has written is now out of date, such is the speed with which the relevant science has progressed (neuroscience, genetics, medical science etc) over the last 18 years.

Amusingly there are parts in his book where he presents research and arguments supporting his premise women are superior, which he then later contradicts with other research and arguments which debunks this premise. These instances and other obvious mistakes, leads me to partly suspect he may not actually have believed what he was saying about women really being superior. Rather I think writing the book was his attempt at a time in the early 1950s, to encourage women to apply themselves. Not that I think it makes his work any less irresponsible and divisive. On a broader note it is worth mentioning that so much of what some left wing academics believe in and preach, is riddled with contradictions and basic flaws.

Perhaps what I found of greatest interest was Montagu’s account of why he wrote the book in the first place. Montagu describes the rambunctious way men treated him during childhood (not to suggest he was abused, well that we know of) and how women always seemed to be more sensitive and caring toward him. Montagu strikes me as a man that was quite sensitive and altruistic (then again he expressed no such traits toward men as a gender, which is indicative of bigotry). A man with a personality that was at complete odds with the male stereotype of his time. Don’t get me wrong he was just as much a man as any other man, but he may have felt a little disconnected and disillusioned with men so different from himself when he was young. I can share his sentiments to an extent. I would not have liked the male stereotype either or how men were socialised and pressured to behave back then. In fact, most men of today would not have liked it. However attributing the behaviour of men back then to some form of innate male inferiority, without considering the enormous social pressures forced upon men to be aggressive, unemotional robots (conversely women were heavily ostracised for being violent or overtly aggressive), was a pretty big mistake to make. Predictably a biased cold loathing, lack of empathy and disregard for his own genders humanity, does appear to be hinted at in parts of Montagu's writings. This is rather at odds with the reality that women who he regards as "superior", often flock to men with the very trait he despises-masculinity. Scientific studies have proven that women are most attracted to men with high testosterone when they are ovulating. So perhaps Montagu should blame it all on women! Facepalm.

Perhaps what is worthy of greatest consideration, was the backdrop of when Montagu's sexist diatribe was written. The book was first published in 1953. When I read material from female supremacists on how women are more often the creators of life and men are more often the destroyers of life, I get a pretty strong indication of what is likely to have been on Montagu's mind when he wrote the book. During the first 5 decades of his life, he had witnessed two world wars, the use of two atomic bombs and a nuclear arms race between the USA and Soviet Russia. In fact only a year before the book was published, the United States detonated the first thermonuclear (fusion as opposed to fission) bomb. The United States in which he resided, was practicing duck and cover in its school system and building bomb shelters. That would have been pretty scary. Perhaps most importantly he had witnessed the genocide of 6 million Jews and members of his own race (Montagu was a Jew). Then consider that in the 1950s women like men had a very confined traditional role, with little latitude to move out of it. If you consider all of that and then take into account Montagu’s personal life, one can understand why he would have written such a book. Extreme times called for extreme measures, even if they were not entirely appropriate. Bold messages catch people’s attention and shock them into questioning the status quo. Would people have listened if he had of titled the book, “The strengths of women and their equality with men”. At the time among a conservative America on the brink of another world war, perhaps not. Again it does not make what Montagu wrote right, but one can at least understand the likely motivations behind writing such a book.

The female supremacists association of masculinity with violence is incredibly simplistic. How many men were forced to commit violence as soldiers through conscription and selective service? How much of a say did the average male soldier have on whether or not he would commit an act of violence in war? No one forced women to go out and fight. Perhaps people might want to consider these realities before they associate violence as an inherently masculine trait. People might also want to reflect on the fact that the same people who claim to despise male violence, often encourage it when they require the protection of men and need a threat taken care of. Women of the white feather campaign during World War One come to mind. How many men have fought to protect their families in war and from invasion? The sacrifice men have made for our countries, is a debt we can never repay back to them. Perhaps if we respected the humanity of men, the price of war would be too high and we would finally have peace. Montagu mentioned in his book that the genders should not compete with each other, but rather cooperate with each other as they complement each other. That was about the only thing he says that is constructive. If he had of sat down and wrote a book about the genders today, I highly doubt he would have written such a one-sided argument of why women are superior to men.


The Men And Women Are Different Species Myth (Men Are From Mars, Women From Venus)

Despite all of the differences that I have discussed in this article, people need to understand that the sexual dimorphism in our species is very complex. Most of the major innate differences between the genders are physiological (i.e different reproductive systems, secondary sex characteristics, muscle mass, skeletal structure etc). In most aspects of cognition, emotion, behaviour and other aspects of psychological functioning, innate sex differences are either small or non-existent. A rare few are large like that seen in social dominance and emotional stability. Some differences are of moderate size. In both these cases there is still significant overlap between the bell curves of both genders.

Most of the psychological differences we see are very specific and non-general. For example men and women might perform the same task equally as well, but some highly specific steps of the task may confer a male or female advantage. The factor that contributes overwhelmingly and perhaps unsurprisingly to the majority of psychological sex differences, is socialisation. The amplification of small innate sex differences between the genders, due to different social expectations placed on the genders cannot be understated. There is an enormous amount of research confirming the large impact socialisation has on generating psychological sex differences. No that does not mean people can raise boys as girls or girls as boys. Gender identity is innate and is not learned or associated with what one is good at or prefers. What it does mean is that individuality plays a far greater role than gender in determining who a person is and how they act. If we treated people differently based on their individuality and not their sex, we could improve society considerably.

Dr. Cordelia Fine and her book Delusions Of Gender, touches on these issues further. She discusses the inherent flaws in the methodologies and contradictions in the findings of gender research studies. The abundance of gender myths held as gospel and the plethora of studies that disprove them. An example being that women are somehow better able to read peoples thoughts (or body language) than men. A myth that she completely discredits. She demonstrates that a significant amount of what we think we know about gender differences in society, are social constructs that are perpetuated in the media and in popular culture despite little or no scientific basis to them. She does not dismiss the fact that innate gender differences exist, but correctly describes how genetics and environmental influence are connected with each other in a dynamic interplay. Environmental influence, socialisation and gender stereotyping amplifies what would mostly otherwise be relatively small or nonexistent gender differences (although some large and moderately sized innate gender differences do exist in some areas).

Again, I don’t think women are superior to men. I don’t think men are superior to women. I think they are different, but in many areas, particularly the areas that really matter, they are the same. Women have strengths, men have strengths. We complement each others strengths and weaknesses.


The Matriarchy Nonsense And Related Fallacious Assertions

A matriarchy would be a disaster for society. Why? Because the only way to efficiently run society is to select the person most suited to each role. If we select people for positions based on generalisations we make about gender, then we will not be selecting the best candidate for each position. This will effectively undermine the economic performance of society. The only way to effectively run society is to base selection of personnel purely on merit. Only then do you maximise efficiency and productivity. A matriarchy cannot emerge from a meritocracy. Why? Because there are no significant differences in cognition, emotion and behaviour that could justify the majority of positions of seniority, authority and leadership going to women. Most of the psychological sex differences that do exist are quite small and the few that are large are in areas of little significance with respect to leadership. The only exceptional psychological sex difference that is relevant to which gender leads, is the much greater prevalence of the personality trait of social dominance in men. I am not suggesting women are less capable of leadership than men (or that women are more capable of leadership than men). What I am saying instead, is that women have a far lower desire to acquire power and authority on average because they score considerably lower in terms of social dominance on average than men do. Of course there is overlap in the bell curves, but the sex difference in social dominance is quite large and thus is highly likely to have at least some genetic underpinning.

Moving on, I have noticed female supremacists like bringing up transformational leadership. Firstly transformational leadership is overhyped. The people that caused the GFC were primarily transformational leaders and they were men and not women. So firstly men can be transformational leaders and secondly transformational leadership is not always a good thing. Invoking inspirational motivation (a component of transformational leadership) does not automatically produce positive outcomes. In fact it tends to make people blindly follow the leader and in business that can be disastrous. Another major problem with transformational leadership is that it can be prohibitively expensive to implement and does not always produce results that have a tangible impact. Human resource programs associated with implementing transformational leadership are not always cost effective. Hence the reason why many businesses still practice and widely implement transactional leadership instead. This especially applies when the environment is volatile and unstable, or when a business is in a crisis. There is often no time or resources for transformational leadership and the risk of investing in this leadership style in management is often too risky.

Aside from all of that, transformational leadership is a very social process and thus strongly influenced by socialisation. Leadership in general is strongly influenced by the socialisation of individuals. Research suggests that the reported small female advantage in transformational leadership, is primarily the result of the higher social pressure on women to acquire social and communication skills during childhood and adolescence. It is not innate, it is learnt and developed over time. I have even seen other research which shows no difference in the capacity for transformational leadership between men and women at all. Furthermore, leadership still remains a poorly understood area of organisational psychology. Our scientific understanding of leadership and the vast bulk of scientific literature on the subject, does not support the premise women are better leaders than men (or vice versa).

To suggest war, violence and so forth throughout history proves men are inferior leaders to women, is a simplistic and seriously flawed argument. War and violent conflict have ultimately arisen from the scarcity of resources that has faced human society for much of its history. Only recently has the human race found itself in an age of relative abundance thanks to technology that men primarily created. Under the same harsh historical conditions, I have little doubt we would have still had war and violent conflict if women had of been running things. To blame it on male aggression is a childish argument to make. Male greed often pales in comparison to the greed of many women. There have been plenty of female leaders that have started wars and engaged in violent conflict in the past. Margaret Thatcher, Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, Catherine II, Joan Of Arc and Cleopatra are just some of a plethora of women that I could name. The retort that is often seen from female supremacists when this reality is put forward about these female leaders, is that patriarchal constraints put pressure on these women to engage their nations in war and violent conflict. Do people seriously believe it was the constraints of "the patriarchy" that made these women decide to start or engage in wars? How naïve are people! Stop reading the feminist revision of history which is driven by the feminist ideological agenda and stick to objective accounts of history which are free of feminist influence. These female leaders were fully in control of their own decisions and had enormous authority and power under their sole control. These women were not leaves blowing in the wind of patriarchal forces with no self-determination or self-direction. These female leaders had the power and influence to make their own decisions according to their own agenda and shape and mold the structures, institutions and groups around them, according to that agenda. These women started wars for the same reason that their male counterparts did, because of how scarce resources were for most of human history and the preservation of power over territories to secure those resources.

Securing the scarcity of resources over most of human history demanded war. It was literally the difference between life and death and the rise and fall of kingdoms, empires and tribes. Religion has just been a tool used by the elite and the authorities in the past to gain social support for war, by providing a moral justification for going to war to further the real agenda of acquiring territory and resources. Of course now in our more secular modern societies, governments just fabricate threats (lies about weapons of mass destruction to secure Iraqi oil being one example) to convince the population to support war. Whilst religious extremism and terrorism (both of which I do not support) are associated with each other, when you look at their roots, you find that terrorism is a product of the hatred stirred up in a population when another country invades their homeland or attempts to interfere with their affairs to steal their resources or territory and religious extremism is used by terrorist leaders as a moral justification for retaliatory violence. Regardless of all these aspects of war and mass violence, social science researchers have found that war and violent conflict whilst present today, is actually far less prevalent now in present times than it has been for most of recorded human history and prehistory. With mass production made possible primarily by male invention and ingenuity, the abundance it has provided has considerably reduced the causal drive for war and conflict. On a final note on war and violence, it might be useful for people to consider that whilst more men than women have fought in war, women have frequently encouraged and supported war. The white feather campaign during World War One is one such example. Women or the supposedly "fairer sex", have routinely supported men going to war and dying on their behalf. They have even resorted to shaming men to enlist. So war mongering is not a realm exclusively dominated by men or synonymous with masculinity.

Perhaps I should ask people to think of the amount of women that have been bad bosses or good bosses. Most people report that there are too many bad examples from both genders to say that one gender makes a better boss or a leader. Heck, even I can think of good and bad examples of both male and female bosses. Quite a few prominent women have spoken out against the delusion society would be utopian if women were in charge, by recounting the relationally aggressive behaviour prevalent in women's organisations led by women and the reality that women's organisations show all of the same common flaws as organisations dominated primarily by men. Indeed a substantial number of women actually say they actually prefer working with men! Society needs to get over the novelty of women being leaders. It is not new and we have had female leaders for hundreds of years. Some people might look at some male tyrant's or corrupt male leaders and then make some sweeping generalisation about the evils of masculinity. The reality is that the actions of these tyrants, has far more to do with these individuals being psychopaths and nothing to do with their masculinity. There are also female psychopaths in power as well (and historically), that have also done a lot of damage. Whether they are male or female, many of our politicians are lying scumbags lets face it (with some exceptions). It is has nothing to do with gender. In the words of Gerald Celente: "Just to make the point, black or white, male or female, religion, makes no difference man. Slime is slime, it comes in all colours, races, creeds and genders". Speaking of slime, here is a video discussing some of the lies President Barack Obama and Joe Biden have recently been making about rape and masculinity on behalf of their feminist lobbyists to the American people. Demonising men is easier than doing their jobs for these men and women on Capitol Hill. Harriet Harman over in the UK, is no different with her regard for men and boys. As long as the money and votes keep on coming in and people keep buying into the lies and propaganda, our male and female politicians don't care.

Whether it is Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton, George Bush Jnr or Sarah Palin, Condoleeza Rice or Donald Rumsfeld, Ben Bernanke or Janet Yellen, the gender is irrelevant. They all lie, they have all made blunders, they are all in it for themselves, they all care very little for the public interest and they are all cut from the same cloth of elitism. Oh and female leaders from that list above have supported and promoted needless foreign wars, in addition to their male counterparts. No one makes any of these women do anything, they have all had or still do have enormous authority or influence, they are all in control of their own actions and they are all responsible for their actions, just like their male counterparts. Their gender is irrelevant, period. However for many of our male and female leaders, playing the gender card does help them play off the mass idiocy of the cohort of voters who are actually stupid enough to believe the gender of a leader matters. It is what a leader stands for and does that matters, not what genitals are between their legs. As for political idiocy, I would say George Bush Jnr and Sarah Palin are about equal with each other. Thank goodness the world was spared from Palin being in the White House, Bush was enough mental retardation for the world to bare. Obama and Hillary are no better, they are just smarter liars. It is no different in other countries of the world like Australia either. Female mining billionaire Gina Rinehart and former Australian politician Pauline Hanson and their archaic views (some of it quite racist in Hanson's case) and destructive influence on Australian politics are two examples of many I could give. Just like men, not all women with power or authority are angels, some are extremely destructive.

Of course there are male and female leaders that do have integrity. UK political candidate Mike Buchanan and Canadian senator Anne Cools come to mind. In fact I will share with you a direct quote from senator Anne Cools, in her presentation at the first international men's conference in Detriot in 2014: "Men and women are equally capable of vice and virtue, vice and virtue are human conditions not gendered ones". Also at that conference was the founder of the world's first women's shelter Erin Pizzey, whom also gave a presentation. In her speech, Erin Pizzey labelled feminism an evil empire and identified the role of Hillary Clinton, among other bigoted women, in helping fund and perpetuate the corruption and fraud of mainstream feminism. Indeed in many respects, it has been feminist driven mainstream media that has been responsible for demonising men and boys and falsely portraying them as inferior in our culture. The social damage is now intergenerational and will have lasting effects on our societies. The bottom line is that female leadership is as flawed as male leadership.

When you really get down to the fundamentals, the love of money is the root of all evil in society and not masculinity. It is also worth remembering all of the great male leaders in history, before branding an entire class of people as inherently evil and responsible for all of the wrongs in the world. Does Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela or Abraham Lincoln ring a bell? How about Jesus Christ? I am agnostic, but Jesus was a great man and a great leader, regardless as to whether or not he was actually the son of God. Just looking at the worst of male leadership and ignoring the good, does not accurately reflect reality. Assigning the behaviour of a tiny handful of bad men as being representative of men in general, does not reflect reality either. The bias and logical fallacies in the thinking of female supremacists is obvious.

I must say that I find it rather staggering that some women claiming gender superiority of the female sex, could claim women are morally superior in the same utterance. Newsflash, claiming gender, racial, ethnic or religious superiority does not make you superior, it makes you a bigot. Great individuals do not go around talking about how they are superior to another group of people either, indeed such bigotry is generally a sign of stupidity. Women are not morally superior to men and one great set of examples to demonstrate that, is the rhetoric and actions of feminist bigots themselves. Here are some examples linked here, here and here. For more examples go to my article on "Why So Many People Are Against Feminism".


Why Will A Matriarchy Not Emerge?

So with all that said, why do I not think a matriarchy will emerge? Firstly it would require oppressive laws such as mandatory quotas, or a biased education/employment environment for it to come into existence. Laws and gender bias in education/employment, will have to force more women than men into leadership and high positions in society. This will undermine the efficiency and productivity of our economies and governments, which affirmative action and the meddling hand of feminist hypocrisy is arguably already doing. Why? Because the best people won’t be selected for each job and half the population will be hindered from realising their full potential. A woman will get the job and be given better support to realise her potential, simply because she has a vagina. This will inevitably cause serious societal and economic problems which will force the hands of politicians, law makers and business leaders to correct the gender imbalance. Secondly many women actually do not want the power that is coming to them. Many opt out of pursuing the corporate ladder because of the demands it poses on them (I don’t blame them). Climbing the corporate ladder has more significance to men and their life goals. A matriarchy will force women to hold responsibility and accountability that they may not want. They will become trapped in the role that men were historically chained to in the so-called patriarchy. No more hypo-agency, no more deferring blame and accountability onto men. No more exercising power by proxy from a safe distance. No more resting on men’s shoulders while men work the 50-60 hour weeks. Women will be the ones with the world on their shoulders.

The reality is that women score considerably less in terms of social dominance than men and have a substantially lower desire for power and authority. Given this fact and that the role of leading society comes with a lot of stress and loss of personal freedom, I doubt women will want a matriarchy if it emerges. They will be forced to look after society whether they want to or not and they will be stuck with all the baggage which that entails. Inevitably women will be just as trapped in their new leadership role as what they were when they were confined to being stay-at-home-mums. This is why patriarchies and matriarchies ultimately are not ideal for either gender. They effectively trap men and women into roles that may not want. Many women may not want the leadership that is coming to them and the enormous responsibility and accountability associated with it. Likewise many men including myself do not want the patriarchy to come back. Not because it was bad for women, but because it was bad for men as well as women. Men do not want to be forced into being the provider and leader and given no freedom to be anything else.

It might seem like I am dismissing matriarchy because of some bias. Some may say that since patriarchies have existed in the past, why can’t we have matriarchies? The only reason we had patriarchal societies for most of recorded human history, was because the environment was too harsh and hostile for the far more physically vulnerable women to do men’s work. In addition, work was up until recently a very physically arduous activity. Due to our greater physical strength and fitness, men had to take on the risks and do the hazardous work that women were not capable of doing. As we were putting our lives in harms way, we were given the responsibility to govern, lead and protect society. We earned our so-called "male privilege" with blood, sweat and sacrifice. It makes sense that the ones making the greatest sacrifice and taking on the greatest risk, would be the ones given authority over society. Was that ideal for men? No. Many men did not want that responsibility or to risk their lives, with or without privilege. It was only when technology created a relative abundance of goods and eliminated the physical nature of work, that the patriarchy was no longer needed and we suddenly started hearing about feminism (funny that). Unlike the patriarchy, there are no set of environmental conditions or physical or psychological sex differences that can justify implementing a matriarchy on modern society. Technology has allowed us to build a meritocracy based on principles of egalitarianism. Why has this taken off? Because it appeals to our sense of fairness and freedom. That is why a patriarchy or a matriarchy will never be ideal for women or men. It is too limiting. That especially applies to those that have the power and authority, for they are obligated to meet their responsibilities to look after those below them. It is also horribly inefficient in a workplace where major sex differences have been rendered mute by technology.

So no I don’t think a matriarchy will be good for society and I don’t think it will be sustainable. It is unlikely to emerge anyway regardless of how much feminist influence and affirmative action takes place in our society. There are too many costs and the leaders of our world know it. An unsustainable system like a matriarchy, is inherently unstable and will collapse in on itself. What I have just described has been termed the "Fempocalypse" by blogger Girlwriteswhat (definitely worth watching). Of course I have not even mentioned that men still maintain all of our infrastructure, military and police forces. Again men also still heavily dominate engineering, mathematics, physics, the hard sciences and computer science. These professions basically underpin all the technology our society depends on to function. What do female supremacists think will happen if they impose a totalitarian and oppressive societal system upon the very men keeping our society running? No electricity, food, water, gas, public transport, road maintenance, police force, fire brigade or military. No technical expertise to keep our buildings, telecommunications, IT infrastructure, finance, insurance and actuarial processes going. Technological advancement will dramatically decline as well. How long do female supremacists seriously think their power on society would last? Female supremacy in the astronomically small chance it ever takes charge of society, will have a very short life! I don’t think men will voluntarily sign up to be treated like second class citizens, or have their freedoms, rights and opportunities infringed upon. I don't think men will willingly go along with being confined to a life of servitude either! What a delusion.

I have discussed why a matriarchy is unsustainable further in another article I have written linked here.


The Ancient Matriarchy And Divine Goddess Nonsense

By the way for those people that have bought into the feminist fictional revision of history and the goddess culture and ancient matriarchies, might I suggest you read Prof. Paul Nathanson and Prof. Katherine Young's thorough debunking of these myths in the book, "Sanctifying Misandry" (I highly recommend it). Numerous other academics have dismissed this nonsense as well. Women did not rule over men in recorded history and as far as we can tell they did not do so in prehistoric times either. Men and women had different forms of power in ancient societies and in reality they delegated power to each other and they did not oppress each other. Yes a small number of societies were matrilineal such as the Navajo and yes some had goddesses in their religions (many other societies had neither matrilineal customs or supreme female dieties), but that does not mean women ruled over men. Men actually had quite a lot of power in such societies and the Native American Indians were no exception. Reality tends to be more nuanced and complex than female supremacy permits. Making huge baseless leaps and bold claims helps no one. So for the sake of sanity and reason can we please stop revising history and making erroneous claims so a few gender ideologues in academia can satisfy the agenda of ideological feminism? All they are trying to do is come up with their own version of the "original sin" to instill guilt in men and boys and give women and girls some twisted justification to subjugate men (which is never justified).


Why Male Sexual Submissiveness Does Not Equal Male Inferiority

I suspect that many sexually submissive men and sexually dominant women, fall prey to the cult of female supremacy in an effort to understand themselves and their own sexuality. So what are the origins of sexual submissiveness and sexual dominance in men and women? Our current scientific understanding points to subcortical sexual dominance and submission circuitry in the hypothalamus. These are ancient neural circuits that we have inherited from our mammalian ancestors that lived millions of years ago. During prenatal development, the hormonal balance of the womb (testosterone and estrogens) and genetic activity influence how our brains are built and become wired. In some instances men are born with submissive circuitry linked to the sexual pleasure centers of the hypothalamus and women are born with dominance circuitry linked to their pleasure centers. Sexual submission in women and sexual dominance in men have the same origins. Social dominance and sexual dominance are not to be confused with each other, as they involve completely different areas of the brain. For example, some men are socially dominant and sexually submissive etc.

Sexual development continues after we are born and involves a complex neurodevelopmental process in which a neural template is formed in the brain called a “Lovemap”. Lovemaps basically are templates which describe in our minds the ideal lover (a brunette for instance) and the ideal courtship process (female domination for example). They describe the sexual cues we will respond to or our “turn ons” (such as attractive lingerie or broad shoulders). A psychological process known as imprinting during our youth can tweak, mould or etch out our Lovemaps through neuroplasticity in the brain. This is how various fetishes and our vanilla “turn ons” come about.

A good analogy to think of is that of a tree. Imagine a tree of neurons in the brain with branches growing out from an initial trunk of cells, as a person matures and becomes an adult. At birth some men and some women may have the seeds of sexual submissiveness and dominance planted in their brains, thanks hormones, genes and prenatal neurodevelopmental biology. As they sexually develop, imprinting at various stages may cause these seeds to sprout and grow a few stems. From there, sexual submissiveness or dominance may grow like a tree once a certain neurological tipping point is crossed (probably around puberty) and individuals acquire enough sexual experiences. Consequently as a man or woman reaches sexual maturity, their “lovemap” may involve a courtship process involving sexual dominance or submission. This is perfectly healthy and normal provided it does not impair people’s ability to go about their life and/or cause these people to harm others. Then it is a paraphilia and a mental disorder.

All female supremacy really is, is a psychosexual fantasy and a projection of some people’s sexual desires. Part of it is emotional and part of it is sexual. Provided female supremacy is recognised and treated as nothing more than a fantasy then it is harmless. It is when individuals blur the line between fantasy and reality which most female supremacists do, that they enter into delusion and develop a paraphilia. Fantasy land and reality need to be kept apart. The problem with female supremacists is that for most of them, female superiority is their actual worldview and this affects their actual attitudes toward the genders in daily life and influences their behaviour toward them. When female supremacists think their fantasy is reality, expose children to beliefs in female superiority as some of them do and apply it to the rest of society outside of the bedroom, then they cross a line and they have serious issues. That needs to be called out for the insanity that it is. Female supremacy is a fantasy nothing more. I should not even have to say that.

So to summarise, sexual submissiveness, dominance and so forth are not the result of one gender being superior to the other. They come down to ancient courtship practices that are wired into the human brain and are activated sometimes during prenatal development and expanded upon during sexual development in youth and early adulthood. It is nothing to be ashamed of, this is a normal part of the vast spectrum of human sexuality (humans are one of the most sexually diverse and complex species on Earth). But people do need to use their commonsense. As with anything be responsible. The BDSM sphere thankfully does have good guidelines for people to follow, such as safe, sane and consensual and risk aware, consensual, kink. There are plenty of people that practice female dominance and female led relationships without these pathological beliefs in female supremacy and female superiority. Power exchange after all is based on trust and trust is based on mutual respect. Female supremacy does not involve mutual respect, it is a self-serving justification to exploit sexually submissive men, many of whom are trying to understand themselves and are still new to BDSM. Power exchange is simply an advanced form of sex which takes intimacy to a higher level of trust.

In our current society where men and boys are routinely told they are inferior by our mainstream media, TV content, ideological feminism and so forth, it is little wonder that cults like female supremacy have formed. Sexually submissive men (and many young men now in general) can’t even develop a healthy attitude toward the opposite sex or understand their own sexuality properly, without being psychologically attacked and brainwashed. That speaks volumes about how much pressure is on men and boys. When something so personal and integral to human nature like male sexuality cannot be explored without being subject to psychological abuse or manipulation, that is a worry. I seriously urge people to watch this video on male sexuality and how it is marginalised in our societies. Young men are even being shamed now with posters like "Teach men to not rape", which imply that rape is somehow associated with male sexuality in general rather than psychopathy. This is how men are taught to feel ashamed of their own sexuality and their masculinity and to develop a self-loathing toward their own gender. Now imagine the impact that has on men, particularly men that are sexually submissive and how they view themselves. On a final note, being sexually submissive does not make a man or a woman inferior. To put thoughts in their heads to suggest otherwise is psychological abuse. Hopefully this section has been useful for people and cleared up a few mysteries.


Parting Remarks To Female Supremacists

Now I will finish this Hub by offering some advice to female supremacists. This is geared primarily at sexually submissive men. If the female supremacist you follow is so superior, then why does she show such a lack of empathy and morality toward you? How many women in your life, including your mother or sister that loves you, have a higher character than the woman that you are worshipping and being exploited by? Surely these women are superior to the female supremacist you worship. If so, do you seriously think they would approve of the way you are being treated and allowing yourself to be treated? If you believe your purpose is to serve women, then would it not then follow that you are disobeying the vast majority of women that deplore such abuse and notions of female supremacy? Then after you have given that some reflection and have had a reality check, consider the arguments I have written in my two articles on the subject. If you are still not convinced, then might I suggest following some supposedly "superior" women (which they are not) such as Karen Straughan, Alison Tieman, Alyss Majere, Dr. Tara Palmatier, Janet Bloomfield, Barbara Kay, Prof. Christina Hoff Sommers, Prof. Janice Fiamengo, Dr. Helen Smith, Prof. Katherine Young and Honey Badger radio. You might also be interested to hear what supposedly "inferior" men (again which they are not) such as Paul Elam, Tom Golden, John Hembling, Dr. Miles Groth, ManWomanMyth, Prof. Paul Nathanson, Dr. Warren Farrell, Victor Zen, Spetsnaz and Barbarossa have to say and check out A Voice For Men. Lets ramp up that cognitive dissonance of yours shall we and break through that brainwashing. Oh and that list of people is just a sample, there are many more where they came from.

To the sexually dominant women preaching female supremacy, you are either delusional, a sociopath, or possibly a combination of both. If there is one thing I despise it is those people who are given authority by others and abuse that authority, whether it be in personal relationships or elsewhere. Preaching female supremacy and playing with other men's sexuality and identity is psychological abuse. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you probably don't care do you? As long as your own needs are satisfied at the expense of someone else. On the off chance you actually have a moral compass, might I suggest you demonstrate your so-called female supremacy by acting with a conscience and cease exploiting men and attacking their dignity. If you think you are so great, then demonstrate the accountability, responsibility and character of such a great individual.

If you want an example of a woman who was a truly great woman, then learn about Mother Teresa. Then look at Gandhi to learn about a truly great man. None of these people have more value or dignity than any other individual. They were just truly great people. Female supremacists couldn’t even attempt to emulate the shadow of these great human beings even if they wanted to. Why? Because truly great people (man or woman) care more about other people than themselves. If people must adore someone, adore these people or the people that give you unconditional love.

There is nothing wrong with femdom or maledom if you practice it safely, sanely, consensually and with mutual respect. Domination and submission are essentially about power exchange and the transfer of control. The dominant has the power and the authority. This is much the same as the relationship between an employee and employer. Just because one person has authority over another person, does not make them a superior being or of more value or worth. It is about power not who is better. The submissive temporarily relinquishes their control. This is healthy provided both parties needs are satisfied and no ones health or well-being is negatively affected. Domination is about controlling the exchange of needs, not about a dominant satisfying only their own needs. Anything less than that is exploitation and an abuse of power. Dominant’s have a responsibility to ensure they administer their authority appropriately and correctly. Female supremacists want to void accountability toward the other person. That is not leadership, that is weakness. If a submissive male wants to be dominated by a dominant female, then they must make sure she has the character to make her worthy of such a high position. The same applies with male domination.

That is all. I think these two articles should be sufficient for most people to throw female supremacy and female superiority into the trash basket. Like its male counterpart, notions of female superiority/supremacy are garbage. The genders are different but equal in terms of value and human dignity. Neither gender is better than the other or more advanced. Aside from all of that, the genders share far more similarities than differences. This is especially true in the psychological domain. We are designed to complement each other, not to compete with or oppress each other.

Now can we move on from this divisive nonsense please and start dealing with the serious problems facing the human race.

Click to Rate This Article