Women and Evolution

Clytemnestra

Men have evolved to be disposable protectors of women. Little boys will instinctively pick up sticks and use them as swords and rifles. They will even practice dying. Aaarrrgggh! The fact that women are significantly weaker than men and are less aggressive is not the only reason women make lousy warriors. Dying for your country can seem like a strange concept for a modern liberal-influenced person. But, historically, men knew that in some circumstances, if they were defeated by the enemy, then they would be killed. Maori intertribal wars of conquest, for instance, typically involved killing the men and enslaving the women, though some of them were killed too and some men were enslaved. An Alexander the Great, however, would defeat a region’s army and then merely subjugate everyone as a vassal state. In other cases, people like the Dorians would subordinate the local Ionians via killing, settling, and ousting. Muslims would enslave men and women, white and black, and castrate the men, turning them into eunuchs, and breed with the women. From a genetic and evolutionary perspective, either way, it would make sense for men to fight for the survival of the tribe, and to fight sometimes even to the death since they have nothing much to lose in terms of natural selection. Women, on the other hand, are a valuable commodity. A community’s ability to survive depends on having fertile women with relatively few men needed to impregnate them. Most women will breed with members of the same tribe, or with a neighboring tribe through some exchange program. But, even if their region is invaded and subjugated, and even if the men are killed, they will be generally left alive and still have children. In England, large numbers of people have a Celtic matrilineal line, but Anglo-Saxon or Viking patrilineal line. Celtic women were either forced to mate with the invaders, or they chose the higher status and more successful interlopers voluntarily in the manner of hypergamy. Women’s genes will live on. The subjugated or killed man’s, not so much.

In some Greek tragedies, the woman’s husband has been killed by a conqueror and she is now married to the very man who killed her former husband. Clytemnestra is an example. Agamemnon had killed her first husband. Marrying the actual person who killed your husband seems a bit unlikely, but, historically, marrying a member of the conquering tribe, or becoming part of his harem, will have been reasonably common.  The genetic record is in accord with the obvious. DNA from the conqueror men get promulgated, the men on the losing side do not reproduce, and the women’s genes continue unabated. This is a worldwide phenomenon.

Women have less of an incentive to demonstrate loyalty. A contemporary lack of loyalty of women towards men can be seen with the enthusiasm with which the concept of toxic masculinity has been embraced. With women now supplanting men in the role of, for instance, the captain in Star Trek Discovery, why are they supposed to be risking their lives in the manner of men? Not to save men. Not to save children (children are for losers). Other women? What do they do alone in their cabin after a hard day saving the universe? Revel in girl power?

Women have evolved to be less ethnocentric than men and also, not to fight to the death. It is not in their interests to do so. Women have been shown to be better at learning a second language which would have been necessary when conquered from without. Women are better verbally in general. The virtues of loyalty and defending the group can be counterproductive for women. Multiculturalism is a convenient ethos if you are a woman and want to live. The most enthusiastic “race traitors,” as the Woke call them, are white women competing with other white women for social status by showing supposed moral concern for the outgroup. And, the more out the out group, the better. I care about homosexuals. That’s nothing, I care about transsexuals. I care about Muslims, the very Muslims who would put me in a hijab. When they blow people up or shoot them it becomes even more important to show tolerance. The logical next step is to care about pedophiles. Pedophiles are currently the lowest of the low, next to white men who are low only because they are high. She who first learns to love pedophiles will win the next round of the phoney compassion Olympics. You would think that women’s evolved concern for children would prevent this. However, women have been perfectly fine with sterilizing children by injecting them with hormones and maiming them forever in the name of transsexualism. Doctors can be struck off if they demur in any way from a child’s assertion that he or she is in the wrong sexed body. Schools primarily run by women, will keep a child’s new sexual identity from the child’s parents. Perhaps the fact that pedophilia benefits children in no way will remain a hurdle for a bit longer. The lack of loyalty to men and members of her own race will be much more consistent with evolved feminine traits than the male. Women have been shown to be more sexually fluid than men, too. Women in harems may well end up in lesbian relationships with their fellow harem members as they co-parent each other’s children.

This is all of a piece with women’s tendency to be more socially conformist and agreeable. Devlin comments on a desperate desire of many young women for guidance and role models. Cosmopolitan magazine is filled with advice. There is no male equivalent. Agreeable, conscientious people positively want to do what is socially expected of them. When this is not provided, young women really do not know what to do. “Patriarchy” is partly about imparting direction from someone who is more self-directed, on this view.

Roger Devlin writes: “Shalit has difficulty putting herself imaginatively in the place of a male. There may well be an evolutionary explanation for this. Men instinctively protect women because the future of the tribe lies in the children they bear. Women have adapted to this state of affairs and it colors their moral outlook. They do not spend much time worrying about the well-being of men. Even getting them to cook supper for their husbands is probably a triumph of civilization. Their natural inclination is to let men look after themselves and take their chances in life. At the same time, they count on men to shield them from the harsher aspects of reality, and become extremely indignant at any man who fails to do so. In other words, women are naturally inclined to assume that men must take responsibility for everyone, while they are only responsible for themselves and the children. Young, still-childless women have no one left to think about but themselves and easily fall into self-absorption.”[1] There is a failure of moral reciprocity.

In conversation with a sister, I tried to convince her that “the strong silent type” male can be really quite useful, rescuing women in states of distress. Requiring him to “talk about his feelings” and be more like a woman as well is really quite unreasonable. My sister was unmoved. The male savior can bloody well get in touch with his feelings too or bugger off.

Women do not want lots of men. They want the best man. So, women have evolved to be serial monogamists. Nothing can alter the hypergamous nature of women. Access to resources will be higher if your mate is high status in the group. “Sexual liberation” puts women in extreme competition with each other. Women on Tinder “date” the top 4% of the most attractive and successful men. One man interviewed claimed that his profile fit the desired demographic so well that he had had 20,000 expressions of interest. Mathematically, there will be an amazing failure of those top-dog men to “commit,” since they could not if they wanted to. So, women are not and cannot be happy, and a society of angry, rejected, frustrated young men is not long for this world. As Devlin writes, women are not interested in 99% of men, who then fall into the “harasser” class. A sexual harasser is the name given to men who express unwanted interest. That’s an awful lot of “harassment.” Now that colleges have nearly a 60/40 division in favor of women, and women in their twenties in the UK out earn men by over a thousand pounds a year, and given women’s evolved refusal to marry down, potential husbands are getting fewer and fewer.

[1] Sexual Utopia in Power: The Feminist Revolt Against Civilization. F. Roger Devlin.

20 thoughts on “Women and Evolution

    • Thanks, Golly G. Willickers. You are reminding me that the movie Damsels in Distress had a theme of women intentionally going for beta males. I think it was supposed to be for the male’s mental and moral improvement. One of the characters had recently learned his colors for the first time.

      • I”m not all the way through the video, but I reject the idea that men absconded and just left women because they didn’t like women being successful. It was feminists who came up with phrases like “Women need men like a fish need a bicycle,” not men. And “all men are rapists.” Academic feminism is explicitly misandrist. It could not and would not exist if scapegoating men were forbidden. See my very long repudiation of feminist claims here https://voegelinview.com/when-one-sex-attacks-the-other-both-lose/. He also mentions the wage gap as something that still needs to be addressed. A cursory examination would reveal this to be wrong. See “Why Men Earn More” by Warren Farrell and/or my summary of it. https://voegelinview.com/warren-farrell-on-why-men-earn-more/

      • No problem. It was interesting to listen to someone who had many of the facts in front of him, but who drew the wrong conclusions. He seems determined to defend women and feminism at any cost. That has been a popular male choice through the ages.

  1. It seems to me in the thinking of behavioral evolutionists that if a behavior exists commonly there must be some adaptive reason for it. This to me is somewhat like arguing that there must be an evolutionary advantage to being born with gimpy, defective legs because all sorts of creatures occasionally are born with that defect. The worst offender to me are folks who argue that male homosexual behavior is somehow, in the grand social scheme, adaptive. But the claim that women behaving hypergamously is adaptive rather than defective is to me almost ad pernicious.

    A commonly occurring maladaptive trait or behavior is going to be something that looks very much Iike adaptive traits but have some crucial flaw which stops it from functioning properly. Flawed sexual behaviors are going to be fairly common, I would expect.

    Hypergamy is merely a flaw, it is a defect, a sin. It is not adaptive nor selected for in humans.

    Now for hypergamy in particular let’s talk about the presumptions here. First that high social status correlates with reproductive success in human societies. In some societies, like midevil England, it seems it did, but marriage was controlled rather better in such a society than most. In others, like Roman decline or modern society, it certainly did not, and those are very hypergamous societies. In harem societies generally it did, but women had very little agency in becoming part of a harem so no selection for hypergamy happened, now did it?

    In fact being the top of society is and always has been a fairly precarious position to be in. In terms of actual societies I wonder if any case can be given where hypergamous behaviors out-compete loyalty in terms of reproductive success.

    As for war, it seems even greater mistakes in assumption are made: it talks as if total annihilation of the males and carrying off of all the females in a defeat was normative or at least common. Of course that’s silly. If it was a raid then loss of property and a one-off rape (a bad reproductive strategy) of more desirable women and possibly carying off of a very few of the most desirable (young, and most likely to be unmarried anyway) women is the outcome. It’s bad for men but not at all catastrophic.

    And in a war of conquest scinerio loss means subjugation. And for men being a good subject/tributary by and large means keeping your women and children and giving up part of your grain and cattle. it wouldn’t be a stretch to say entire cultures developed while being perpetually subjugated by someone, the Chineese of old, the Slavs, the Indian cultures. Certainly you get genetic admixture between dominant and subject cultures, but that happens with trading partners and alliances ad well, any close relationship like that.

    The idea that women won’t fight to the death in defense of their culture, ideals, or faith doesn’t hold up to real-world scrutiny either. The women of Munster certainly did in the peasent wars. The women Sanits who were martyred as well. Of course men rarely fight to the death if given an alternative, hence subjugation/tribute being so common.

    No, I digress. To me the whole idea is a great inversion. Women are for men, not men for women. Being inexpendable in reproduction, being the choke point, means good women are bound by natural law to be maternal, mainly naturally but if infertile she is still bound to be a spiritual mother. Feminists and liberals pretend that it is just men that make it so, but it is nature itself. Men as thr expendable sex does not mean that they are all bound to fight to be a sire, it means the opposite: a man may spend their life entirely uninterested in women with little delirious effect on the future of their society. They can devote themselves to theology or philosophy or engineering or any hobby or fascination.

    Society needs fathers even more than it needs mothers, so many men do have to pursue women, but not all of them have that obligation.

    A woman is a help to the focal point of a man’s life, he is not made for her but her for him.

    I think part of the issue is that family size is so small right now that sons have to reproduce just to keep a male line going. So the status of having women is artificially elevated. If you’re in a normal sized family for humans and are one of five or seven sons then thr pressure to marry would not be so great, esp if you already had nephews.

    • You set up a strawman, at least with regard to my article. The claim that if a behavior exists it must be adaptive is a claim no one is making. It would be a self-sealing fallacy and thus tautological. If all behavior of any kind is adaptive, then no counterexample can possibly exist by definition, proving that the claim that all behavior is adaptive is not actually a factual or empirical claim. Empirical claims admit of hypothetical counterexamples, your claim does not. End of story.

      In order to support your claim, that no one here is making, you then make up a stupid example. If you can find me an example of a scientist claiming that gimpy legs are in fact a survival advantage that is one thing. Again, this is a strawman argument. To make up claims that no one is making is to waste everybody’s time. It is an argument by ridicule, except it is you who are introducing the ridiculous element.

      Hypergamy is adaptive and it is not a sin. The opposite of hypergamy – which means selecting the healthiest, most attractive males with high social status – either equal to the woman’s or higher – would be to select ugly, unhealthy males of the lowest possible social status. Women need providers and protectors for them and their offspring to survive. Therefore, hypergamy exists in every society. Please bear in mind that the unconstrained hypergamy I am describing in the article, centering as it does on modern life, is pathological and probably is a sin. Did I give any other impression?

      I’m sure we can agree that hypergamy needs the constraint of marriage to function well. Harems are by definition hypergamous. The Sultan is in fact that richest most powerful man with the best ability to provide which is good for women. However, the inability of women in a harem to exercise agency would be a bummer.

      It is true that being at the very top of society sets you up for being a scapegoat, as being at the bottom. Generally, however, it will be better to married to a rich man than a slave.

      The ideal combination, from my point of view, would be hypergamy coupled with marriage with no possibility of divorce. That would be an enforced loyalty with social and legal sanctions backing it up.

      I am from New Zealand. Maori would attack another tribe, kill all the men, take their land, and eat and enslave the women. Sometimes they would break the women’s legs so they couldn’t run away, rape them at their leisure, and then eat them. I’m sure they were not alone.

      The Trojan War. In attacking the polis, you would kill all the men, take their treasure and kill or enslave or marry the women. In the play The Trojan Women, the Greeks are shown hunting down even male babies in case they grew up wanting revenge on the Greeks. Lions too are known to kill the cubs of lionesses when they take over a pride. They want to raise their own cubs, not another lion’s. Ruthless humans can have the same idea.

      The Old Testament is filled with the Jews passing various cities and then God commanding them to attack and raze them to the ground, killing their inhabitants. I had a hard time explaining why this was happening to my eleven year old son when I read the Bible to him.

      One theory is that when say the Dorians invaded/inhabited Ionian territory, rather than killing the Ionian men, the Ionian women simply married the Dorians due to hypergamy as the new successful men in town.

      This kind of behavior has been common enough around the world to leave undeniable genetic traces, but it was not the norm. I didn’t say it was the norm. Most women would have remained married to their original husband, rather than being kidnapped in the manner of Clytemnestra. The situation I am describing is exceptional.

      Yes. There are exceptions to women not fighting to the death. Of course, their genes don’t get passed down. I didn’t say there weren’t.

      I agree that not all men are bound to fight to be a sire. Men are at their most dangerous age between 14 and 25 or so. But, I also know that young unmarried men are the most violent of any group. I remember listening to some young man bellowing like a moose at 2am many years ago and thinking “Oh, please, just get yourself a girlfriend.”

      Marriage is a constraint on female hypergamy. And, it is a restriction on men’s desire for multiple sexual partners and variety. Marriage is not perfect, but it seems to beat the alternatives.

      • The opposite of hypergamy is contentedly marrying ones own class. This happens regularly for both men and women. Marrying down in fact also happens regularly for both men and women. I don’t know that anyone likes to do it, actually. Though I concede wome n make a bigger fuss of it if they feel like they had too.

        First, situations that are not voluntary do not select for hypergamous behaviors. How could they? Perhaps they select for stoicism. So harems existing and being carried off do not provide selection pressure for hypergamy. Harems are not hypergamous any more than large slave plantations prove people want to be slaves.

        Part of what is notable about the Trojan war wad that it was particularly vindictive, not at alla blueprint for how Greek war was waged. I was like the razing of Carthage. Alexander did not wage war like that, he conquered as I described, making tributaries. The normal course of Grecian inter polis war is as I described, as was the normal course of Roman War. The hoards as well conquered vast territories by making tributaries.

        When Isreal was to raze a city they were quite strictly and explicitly not supposed to take the women. Isreal had not at all unique standards of racial purity, they were not taking women in those cases. They did take some in cities they made tributaries, but that circles back to what I was saying about subjugation being more common.

        Of course fighting to the death can’t be selected for unless some who were prepared to fight to the death survive. This happens with men regularly but it happens with women as well, like Scandinavian women of old guarding the homestead when men were away or the Munsterite women, many of who not only survived but progenerated almost the entire peoples of the Menonites, Hudderites, Amish etc…

        ‘It is true that being at the very top of society sets you up for being a scapegoat, as being at the bottom. Generally, however, it will be better to married to a rich man than a slave.’

        I think this claim bears examination. As I started to say before, in many societies being upper class has a negative effect on reproduction, not a positive one. Even harems don’t nessisary have positive reproductive outcomes for women. An old king of Cameroon had 400 wives and 200 children, not so good. Of course there are counterexamples, Winston Blackmore had 27 wives and 150ish children, so a goos rate per woman. Other elements of culture matter of course.

        [This comment has been edited to remove repetitious points and frankly insulting ones.]

      • I can’t say that you are much fun to interact with. You seem to combine a fair amount of erudition with poor arguing and interpersonal skills.

        Your idea of an analogy is simply question-begging and an argument by ridicule which is an official fallacy. This thing is ridiculous because it doesn’t make any sense and would be positively and obviously biologically pathological, namely gimpy legs being selected for. And that’s just like hypergamy. What? Hypergamy is the opposite of selecting for men with gimpy legs – the healthiest, both mentally and physically, and the socially successful. That is a terrible analogy/comparison. Pick some other thing like intelligence being selected for, and then you might have something. Intelligence can have its downsides – such as lacking common sense.

        Natural selection for gimpy legs is silly, therefore hypergamy is silly because it is just like selecting for gimpy legs.

        The opposite of hypergamy is just what I said it is. Selecting downward. What you describe is simply NOT hypergamy.

        Harems neither select for nor against hypergamy. But, they achieve the same thing. Women marrying up, or at least reproducing up, not down. Which is actually an interesting idea. Both would have eugenic effect.

        There can be a phenomenon, like now, where the rich and successful stop having children. That’s the problem. So, in the current situation, hypergamy as a reproductive strategy is going to be counterproductive. Right now it is primarily the extremely religiously conservative and those on welfare who have children.

        I’m not aware of doing an is implies ought. Hypergamy or harem-type arrangements typify human societal arrangements. If that’s true, then we have to deal with that and make our choices. It sucks for beta males and that simply becomes another fact about life.

        I was disappointed you made no reference to my Maori comment other than to say that women who are eaten can’t reproduce. Gee, I never realized. The rest were enslaved and would indeed reproduce.

        Yes. There are lots of examples of war like Alexander that did not involve just killing all the men. That kind of behavior has been in the minority, but that happens to be the topic I am discussing.

        I was sorry to see that you ignored a point that I hoped we would find common ground on – namely that hypergamy is fine, but becomes pathological when removed from the context of marriage and enforced loyalty.

  2. Re: “So, women are not and cannot be happy, and a society of angry, rejected, frustrated young men is not long for this world. As Devlin writes, women are not interested in 99% of men, who then fall into the “harasser” class.”

    The old system, the one the cultural marxists have labored to destroy for the last hundred years or – and quite successfully, one might add – worked in part because of the way it softened the blow of female hypergamy.

    In tribal societies and/or those where polygamy is permitted, the most-dominant men not only accrue the most-wealth and status, but also the most and the most-desirable women. In ancient times, a ruler’s harem could consist of hundreds, perhaps even thousands of women. In the Islamic world, the sultan could only be attended by eunuchs, male slaves who had been castrated so that they could not compete for the affections of the females “belonging” to the sultan or emir.

    Monogamy of the kind practiced by the West kept the top males in society from monopolizing all of the resources, whether reproductive or otherwise. Beta men could find and marry a mate, start a family, and lead a happy life as heads of their households. Many, not all, women found this arrangement workable, even ideal. She would stay home and run the home, and he would work and both of them would care for the children, each in their own way.

    This system was harsh in certain ways, and certainly not perfect or even ideal for everyone, but it benefited enough men and women enough of the time that our civilization flourished.

    One could almost cut the irony a year or so ago when a prominent Danish feminist got on the air or in print – I can’t recall which – and let loose with an epic rant, the substance of which was that she despised the feminized “new men” of Europe, and wondered when the “real” men would again put in an appearance and pull their chestnuts, metaphorically-speaking, out of the fire. I remember thinking to myself something like: “It’s gonna be a long wait, lady, because you and your kind outlawed men, remember?”

    The “men going their own way” movement did not arise out of nothing, but out of the risks-and-benefits of participating in the post-modern fun house and gambling casino known as modern male-female relations. A risk-reward ratio which has grown more and more unfavorable to young men. As an older and happily-married man, I look upon this situation with great concern, but also with a degree of resignation. Sooner or later, we all sit down to a banquet of consequences, don’t we?

    • Hi, Georgiaboy61;

      I agree that traditional society softened the blow of female hypergamy. One man and one woman and no possibility of divorce means women and men can’t trade up when it suits them – either for power or looks.

      Only the degenerate is permitted. Masculine women and feminized men – everybody has to be what they are not. I wonder if this Danish feminist is heterosexual? Since straight men go for feminine women, I’m sure she would be out of luck. Men could rant back,”Where are all the feminine women?”

      Yes. I’m happily married too and am so grateful to have nothing to do with any of this. I feel sorry for my students.

  3. Don’t ignore how women interact with other women. They see each other as threats, adversaries in seeking protection, benefactors, appropriate suitors and desirable assets. They may also look upon what other women have with no small degree of envy. They may ask Why can’t I have what she has?
    Those are all powerful motivators with biological as well as psychological bases.

  4. I always enjoyed my own little aphorism on this question, the veracity of which women attest, by their blushes or their guffaws:

    What is the one thing that all women want?
    Everything.

    Many years ago I also concluded that, despite appearances, much of what appears as anti-male behaviour and discourse amongst women is, ultimately – at a purely unconscious level – a perverse *test of masculinity*, and at another degree of abstraction, *a mating strategy*, to sort the wheat from the chaff. In the same way as any woman (or child, for that matter) complains and demoralises a man to test where his boundaries are (if indeed he has any, which is to say, if he is indeed a man). Only this answer can unravel the paradox of the Danish feminist “scholar”.

    The man who rises above the febrile chatter, the negativity, the obsequiousness to orthodoxies of weaker men, the man who seizes with his own courageous hands without apologies, possesses what belongs to him.

    Man has hitherto treated woman falsely, according to the high moral, spiritual nature of masculinity, inducing her into characteristic duplicity denying the primarily carnal, physical desires of the feminine that is her raison d’etre and secret summum bonum. She must pretend to desire justice and goodness and fairness, whereas she wants a warrior – to be taken by one, to be the mother of others – and not necessarily from the same tribe.

    Both men and women must balance their natural characteristics with those moral imperatives that supervene upon all judgment. To paraphrase Chesterton, Christianity has not failed in this matter, but been deemed too difficult, and left untried. We have the circus instead.

    (I’ve mentioned his work before but I’ll say it again: Otto Weininger’s “Sex and Character” is extraordinary.)

  5. This post and the one after it are thought-provoking. This comment isn’t really a response to them, but thoughts on related matters.

    Ironically, the world of warped sexual instincts that we live in was made possible by those who were among the least motivated by such instincts, the geniuses.

    I think that to get past this, likewise, both sexes are going to have to go beyond instinct. One of the traits that men most admire in women (admire, not in the sense of “be attracted to”, but in the sense of “regard as being worthy of respect”) is loyalty and likewise one of the traits that women most admire in men is courage.

    In the classical era, they did a good job at talking about the admirability of these traits and holding up those who exhibited them.

    For instance, Diogenes Laertius quotes a letter which says:

    “And many say that you philosophize in public, as Pythagoras deemed unwothy; for, when he had entrusted his commentaries to his daughter Damo, he charged her not to divulge them to any one outside of the house. Though she might have sold his discourses for much money, she did not abandon them; for she thought that obedience to her father’s injunctions, even though this entailed poverty, was better than gold, and for all that she was a woman.”

    But these traits in their highest expression are motivated by something that goes beyond instinct. In that loyalty may mean loyalty to a weak and scattered group (as the Pythagoreans were at the time) or courage with knowledge that there is a good chance there won’t be a personal reward.

  6. Interesting Professor Cocks. I haven’t been reading the Orthosphere as much since you joined but are these views a relatively new discovery to you?

    I’ve spent lots of time in what I like to think of as the more thoughtful parts of the manosphere. One of the best insights I’ve found seems to be the following: “a woman’s attraction equation is harder for her to solve than a man’s is.” Not my words or insight by the way.

    Men’s attraction is fairly simple and caveman. The trade space for us is physical looks (men can vary in their particular “type”) vs. feminine personality (agreeableness, etc.). It’s true that other things like depth of personality, intelligence (which I suspect you, being an intellectual, value in your wife), chastity and even old fashioned things like “good cook” can attract us as well. Still, it’s the raw attraction of the woman’s feminine beauty and feminine personality that’s so very dominant for us.

    Now see things from women’s point of view. They want (masculinely) attractive men too. Strength of body and what scientists call “low fluctuating asymmetry” (basically handsomeness). But they have a biological interest in successful men, competent men. Men with resources who will commit those resources to her and, preferably, her alone. And her children. And they want men they can emotionally connect with – emotional intimacy. And women’s famous taste for a charming “sense of humor” (personally, I think they like this because it calms their tendency towards anxiety – it’s a kind of strength to them).

    In women’s defense, it’s just really much harder for them. Add to this that on many of these traits they expect higher than merited (based on their own attractiveness to men) levels in the man they select. That’s hypergamy. They are incentivized towards a bunch of traits which are often in conflict in individual men and tend to want high levels of these traits. They expect high levels of desirable traits because they can only get pregnant so many times and pregnancy is biologically expensive and dangerous. So, yes, settling is particularly distasteful to them it would seem.

    It would be interesting BTW for us to formalize definitions for alpha male and beta male. The reason is that it’s now common in pop culture for men to describe other men as “beta” as a sort of put down. This happens on the internet and I’ve seen it from e.g. Tucker Carlson. But it’s funny because the men that do this don’t seem very alpha to me. In other words, almost all men using this term seem pretty “beta”.

    • Thank you, cameron232:
      I hope you didn’t stop reading the Orthosphere because I started contributing!

      This topic is certainly not new to me. I’ve been writing about feminism and patriarchy since I started publishing anything. I even got mentioned in The Guardian pejoratively for a Sydney Traditionalist Forum article about feminism and falling birth rates.

      Ken Wilber introduced me to Warren Farrell around 2000 and I read and taught his books. I was brought up in a feminist household and it never occurred to me that my ability to bring home the bacon would have anything to do with my attractiveness to women, which seems ridiculous. I literally had to read it in Farrell, partly because I was reasonably popular when I was in high school and as a student.

      Not being willing to be a scapegoat for feminists was a big part of my becoming a dissident, as Tom Bertonneau used to call himself.

      Right at the moment I have enjoyed listening to and reading Edward Dutton who brings evolutionary biological language to the topic. Things like R and K strategies are new to me and some specific ideas about loyalty etc.

      You’re right that intelligence in my girlfriends when I was young and now wife is important to me.

      What you write seems thoughtful and true. Farrell used to write about women who marry high earning lawyers who argue for a living who might not like actually living with such a person. I noticed myself that men who are good protectors aren’t good at talking about their feelings and one can imagine women wanting both.

      • I definitely did not stop reading because of you Professor! I particularly enjoyed your review of Evolution 2.0 and circulated it among others.

        This site is a bit too highbrow for me. That speaks more to my deficiencies as a reader than to y’all’s as writers.

        Dutton is quite a character and his writings and videos are quite interesting.

    • Yes the alpha beta stuff can probably get a bit silly. Romance novels have him as a he-man who wrestles alligators, is rich and good looking, and doesn’t take no for an answer.

      Maybe if you have to suggest that you are an alpha male by calling other men beta it means you aren’t one. I personally am not remotely one and hate leadership other than in the classroom. I just want to be left alone to read my books, write my articles and teach my classes.

  7. Pingback: “What’s the One Thing All Women Want? Everything”: False. Why Nothing Draws a Woman Except Attention to the Safety of Her Body – Move from This Mountain

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.