Reasons for Gender Divide in 2024 Election

Reasons for Gender Divide in 2024 Election

 

In the latest USA Today/Suffolk University national poll, women backed Kamala Harris, 53% to 36%. That is a mirror image of men’s overwhelming support for Trump, 53% to 37%. If these margins hold until election day, it will be the most significant disparity since a gender gap emerged four decades ago, in 1980. Among Gen Z voters, one poll had a 2% edge for Harris among men compared to a 33% advantage for Harris among women.

Four years ago, I wrote a seven-part series about our political divide through the lens of evolutionary science. Now, before the most critical election in American history, the gender gap in political affiliation is wider than ever before. In addition to contemporary cultural issues and narratives, there are reasons for this divide based on male and female adaptations for survival and reproduction.

Trump as “Strict Father”

Let’s revisit Trump’s authoritarian impulses (in the links below) and why he appeals to many men and some women. Trump says women should vote for him because he will keep them “safe.”  One of his acolytes, on a rally stage, recently demanded, “Elect Donald Trump, and bring Daddy home.”  (See George Lakoff’s 1996 book, Moral Politics; he explains how conservative moral values arise from “the strict father family.”)

Evolutionary Reasons for the Trump “Bro” Vote

Trump is also appealing directly to disaffected and aggrieved young men in swing states with a gendered, authoritarian message.  (Today, Friday, October 25, Trump is being interviewed by Joe Rogan in Austin – reaching 15 million, with 80% men and 56% between the ages of 18 and 34.) 

What I wrote in 2020 blog posts is even more accurate and troubling in 2024:

These writings are detailed and comprehensive in scope and application of evolutionary science and psychology.  Skim them if you must; read the subheads.   Read Part 2 if you can; it is more targeted for this moment.

Gendered Link Between Liberalism, Conservatism, and Authoritarianism

As explained in the blogs cited above, differences between men and women in cognition, affect, language, and social behavior mirror specific differences between liberals and conservatives. Authoritarianism is a cancerous outgrowth of conservative impulses. These sex (male and female) differences are directly correlated to male and female mating strategies.

“Stereotypes about liberalism having a feminine quality and conservatism a masculine one have empirical backing and are rooted in our neuropsychology, which was shaped by selective pressures of the natural and social environments of our ancestors. In turn, our evolved political orientations reflect those pressures. While there have been many explanations for what drives our political stances, few have as much explanatory power as the strategies we employ to survive and reproduce.”

   ~  Hector Garcia, Sex, Power and Partisanship.  How Evolutionary Science Makes Sense of Our Political Divide 

Of Men and Boys

Related to this male-female political divide in America is the work of Richard Reeves (Of Boys and Men) on the crisis of men and boys. My blog has eleven posts explaining this phenomenon – with causes and solutions.

Thank you for your attention. We desperately need to pay attention right now.

 

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
Why Do Some Feminists Oppose Evolutionary Psychology?

Why Do Some Feminists Oppose Evolutionary Psychology?

Seven Reasons Fueled by Denial of Sex Differences — Let’s Talk About Them

There exists overwhelming evidence for evolved sex differences in human psychology. Rejection based on the misperception that they interfere with the goal of achieving gender equality degrades science and delays scientific progress.
~ David Buss and William von Hippel, Archives of Scientific Psychology (2018)

 

Evolutionary psychology (EP) is the study of human nature—meaning, the study of evolved psychological mechanisms or psychological adaptations. Adaptations are a product of evolution by natural and sexual selection that allow the human species to solve particular problems, most importantly, the problems of survival and reproduction.

So, why do some feminists oppose evolutionary psychology?

Evolved behavioral sex differences are seen as a barrier to progress for gender equality.   I will expound on this and cite six additional reasons that explain the psychological denial and political rationale for this opposition, addressing sex drive, “erotic capital,” objectification, and cues for fertility.

I suspect this post will trigger discomfort for “some” women.

Support of Feminist Political Objectives

I do not dislike “feminists.” I feel alignment with defenders of women’s rights and freedom of expression in all social and business arenas.

For this post, I will identify those defenders as feminists and speak specifically to female feminists. I am not making assertions about all feminists and certainly not all women.

I realize feminism can mean many things.

To be clear, I support women’s empowerment and nearly all “progressive” political positions women take. (The cause of the wage gap is an important exception.)

Aggregate Differences Between Men and Women

I believe in the aggregate biological and psychological differences between men and women, as revealed by thousands of years of adaptation for sexual selection, reproduction, and survival. These are essential tenets of evolutionary psychology.

In aggregate, men and women differ in physical morphology, emotions, behavior, cognition, hormones, brain structures, and many mechanisms for mate selection and sexual psychology.

Inequities Will Not Be Rectified by Denying Difference

While I agree with feminists politically, I am unwilling to ignore the evolutionary science of mate selection and capitulate to all versions of modern “wokeness.”

I will not rethink the interdependency of “nature-nurture” by elevating nurture over nature.

In matters of human reproduction, nature does trump nurture by more than a little bit, and that reality may not serve feminist political ends.

Furthermore, we will not rectify historical power inequities endured by women by blurring the distinction between biological males and females.

Seven Reasons Why Feminists Oppose Evolutionary Psychology

1. Feminist theory and activism consider the proposition of evolved behavioral sex differences as a barrier to progress for gender equality.

Evolutionary psychology has long been entangled in the philosophical debate of nature versus nurture. EP does not align with the “cultural determinist” or “blank slate” perspective that has dominated the social sciences for 50 years.

However, sociocultural and evolutionary explanations are not necessarily at odds with one another.

Evolutionary psychology explicitly identifies how nature and nurture work together.

“Nature” is not an excuse for bad behavior or the oppression of women. Feminists need not fear the terrain of evolved behavioral sex differences.

The following reasons for opposition to EP follow from this first one.

2. Feminists do not want to accept that men (in aggregate) are more sexual than women.

The fact that men are more sexual than women is supported by evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, and every relevant measure of cognition and behavior.

Such research does contradict a singular belief in a sociopolitical and environmental causation of female sexual behavior but need not conflict with a feminist narrative of female sexual empowerment.

There is no need for judgment about male or female sexuality. Female sexuality is more fluid and complex than male sexuality, but that, too, is not to be revered in comparison to men.

3. Feminists do not want to acknowledge that women use sexual power for economic ends — both consciously and unconsciously.

Sex work by women is historically ubiquitous.

But studies also reveal the utility of female sexuality and physical beauty for mate choice hypergamy*, career trajectory, courtship gifts, and receipt of helping behavior in most social interactions and domains of commerce.

Social psychologists and evolutionary psychologists have observed this dynamic. Daniel Hamermesh wrote the book on it: Beauty Pays.

Author Catherine Hakim (Honey Money) calls this “the power of erotic capital.”

Feminists commonly deny the operation of erotic capital.

4. Feminists do not want to admit that women already control men through sex.

Women cannot as easily scream about patriarchy if women control individual men so thoroughly through sex. The Lysistrata phenomenon (“stop fighting or no sex”) is not just a Greek comedy.

Women’s control of men as a gatekeeper to sexual access stems from a simple supply and demand imbalance in mate selection and the differences in sexual initiation by men versus women.

Women are in great demand; interested men are in great supply. Sperm is cheap; eggs are expensive. EP reveals this adaptive feature of human sexual reproduction.

5. Feminists do not want to admit they want to be “objectified” sometimes.

“Objectified” in this context means being “desired with abandon” — a sexual lust that plays consciously with the polarity of subject and object. (Mutual consent is an obvious precondition.)

Preeminent researcher in women’s sexuality, Marta Meana, says, for women, “being desired (being an “object”) is the orgasm.” Evolutionary psychologists, relationship experts, and sexologists understand this.

Women’s sexual desires may include submission — using “role-play” to release control and temporarily suspend responsibility. Submission can be a turn-on and a form of freedom.

Transgression can be erotic, according to international relationship expert Esther Perel.

Feminists may not want to acknowledge their participation in sex play that incorporates a dominance hierarchy.

6. Feminists do not want to admit they want a man who has the capacity to protect and provide.

Heterosexual feminists, like most women, prefer to mate with men who have status, resources, prestige, physical stature, and dominance. (Character and intelligence are always in the mix. Feminists may set a higher bar for men in those realms than the “average” woman.)

The preference for a relatively “high status” man is a “politically incorrect” yet hard-wired female mating strategy predicted by evolutionary psychology.

Here, we see a potential double bind imposed on men: a woman wants a man willing and able to provide and protect while presenting herself (correctly) as independent and self-sufficient.

7. Feminists often deny the truth about cues for fertility that come from the science of body shape, symmetry, facial metrics, skin, and hair.

It is critical for female empowerment (it would seem) to pretend that male attraction to the .7 waist-to-hip ratio is not scientifically proven.

Or that it is some kind of cultural/media artifact — that obese women are as beautiful and sexy to men as fit, youthful women or should be.

Some women need to deny that men are naturally attracted to youth.

Yet, there is broad agreement across all cultures about most signifiers of female beauty associated with youth and fertility.

Women in general, and especially women in their 50s and older, may convince themselves that mate selection science is bogus because the alternative is too psychologically painful.

Women secretly (or not too secretly) are glad for the tremendous erotic power rendered by their youth and beauty in their 20s but want to deny that power exists when they no longer have it themselves.

Embracing Differences Empowers Both Women and Men

This post attempts to surface controversial (and largely “undiscussable”) topics addressed by evolutionary psychology and the science of sexuality and mate selection.

If told through the lens of personal experience and handled with grace and patience, these conversations can deepen empathy and connection between heterosexual men and women and empower both sexes.

Here’s the takeaway — talk to each other and listen with curiosity.

Epilogue: The Political Moment

We are entering a moment in American politics when gender tension will be severe.  According to Derek Thompson of the Atlantic (“What Is America’s Gender War Actually About”), the GOP is selling itself as the “testosterone party” with a version of “alpha-victim masculinity.”

As strongly as feminists may oppose evolutionary psychology, I equally oppose that version of masculinity.

In March 2024, the Views of the Electorate Research Survey found 39 percent of men identified as Republicans versus 33 percent of women—a six-point gap. However, when the survey asked participants how society treats, or ought to treat, men and women, the gender gap exploded. The gender-attitude gap was six times larger than the commonly discussed gender gap.

I do not want to exacerbate tension with this post. Discussing the reasons for opposing evolutionary psychology and the differences between men and women is challenging. But, to borrow from Robert Frost, maybe “the only way out is through.”

*Hypergamy is a social science term that describes the act of marrying or dating someone who is considered to be of higher social status, wealth, or sexual capital than oneself. It can also refer to the practice of continuously trying to replace a current partner with someone who is seen as superior.

 

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
Sperm Are Cheap – Eggs Are Expensive

Sperm Are Cheap – Eggs Are Expensive

“Men tend to want many more sex partners than women do.”
~ Susan Hughes, Archives of Sexual Behavior (2021)

 

Most of my writing these days is in response to authors on Medium who write about relationships, gender, and sexuality. This community is 80% female. Their “voice” leans feminist and culturally progressive. Carlyn Beccia has been a favorite in this space. She covers many subjects, deeply considered with humor and aplomb — writing that sparkles underneath her own unique illustrations. Occasionally we butt heads; she dismisses and sometimes denigrates evolutionary psychology (EP) and my understanding of mate selection science.

Her latest piece was “Nature Makes Men More Promiscuous is an Evolutionary Biology Myth.” This piece is mainly about the number of sex partners reported by men and women. Beccia asserts that men and women are equally promiscuous, as revealed by research from evolutionary biology. I could not let this go unchallenged. Below is my response to her. My post would make more sense if you read her piece, but I think my statements of fact and opinion stand alone in their retort and rebuke.

Promiscuity Assertions Hurt Women More Than Men.

Becca’s first point. I agree. “Slut-shaming” is unfair and uninformed.

Darwin Revisited

Charles Darwin was not right about everything related to non-human species. Still, in the human population, he was right in his speculations about male desire and interest in multiple partners for sexual reproduction.

“Just So Stories” — An Old Criticism of EP Methodology

“Just so stories” is a “bullshit” (using Beccia’s aggressive word choice) and snarky framing of evolutionary science methodology – a worn-out trope. What Beccia describes as a “just so story” (women’s biological investment in children, etc.) is the way it is. Yes, as Beccia notes sarcastically, “sperm are cheap, and eggs are expensive.”

Women Are More Choosey – Full Stop

Women are more “choosey” than men for sexual partners. This comports directly with the evolutionary science of sexual selection and pretty much every single study of modern sexual selection dynamics, including the latest studies of dating apps. To think otherwise is indeed “bullshit.” (Speaking to Beccia) “hell, use yourself and your girlfriends as anecdotal evidence.” Men find the majority of women attractive. Women find the majority of men unattractive.

Women Are Just Not as Promiscuous as Men

Women are just not as promiscuous as men; that would make no sense for children’s survival and the need for paternal certainty. (I will not itemize here the numerous studies that show the difference between men’s and women’s sex “drive” as evidenced by thoughts, fantasies, spontaneous arousal, masturbation, and willingness to engage in sex.) Interestingly, Beccia and other female authors want to take on the badge of promiscuity. To prove what point? A sign of female empowerment? A way to assert that there are no sexual or biological differences between men and women?

Women Do Have More Opportunity

Women have enormously more choices, sexual access, and sexual opportunity than men, but they generally do not act on it. Sexual opportunity is different from a sexual mating strategy. Men and women are typically on opposite sides of that coin.

Rates of Infidelity and Number of Affairs

Rates of infidelity are indeed narrowing between men and women. Recent studies show that men cheat with a more significant number of partners, and women are choosier even in this domain, typically having a single affair.

Numbers on the Bed Post

EP researcher David Schmitt studied 16,288 individuals residing in 52 nations and found that men said they wanted 1.87 sex partners over the next month; women wanted only .78. (He also found agreement of findings across all nations and cultures.)

Ten Partners or One Partner Ten times?

Susan Hughes’ research (2021) in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found (in a very clever design of choosing, in a continuum, between sex with one partner ten times vs. sex with ten partners one time) “in most cases, the women allotted all ten dates to only one or two men.” Concluding, “The results of this study seem to confirm the observation that men tend to want many more sex partners than women do.”

Male Overestimation and Over-perception Bias

Yes, men overestimate the number of their partners, and women underestimate their number because of the bias against female promiscuity. Men’s inflation is somewhat related to the psychological phenomenon of over-perception bias – a belief that women may possibly (aka the movie Dumb and Dumber) be interested in them romantically and sexually. This sexual section phenomenon is related to error management theory; a man cannot afford a false negative result: NOT pursuing a woman (egg) who might otherwise be interested if a pursuit had taken place.

The Difference in Reporting Numbers of Sex Partners Has Four Causes

1. Promiscuity bias (above), also cited by Beccia in the Alexander and Fisher “bogus pipeline” study. That study had an unimpressive subject sample of 293 General Psychology students.

Most Importantly!

2. Women are having sex with the same lucky small subset of men.

Studies from dating apps reveal that the top 78% of women are fighting over the top 20% of men.

Essentially, multiple women are having sex with the same man: one man has sex with five women. He accurately reports five partners. Each of the five women accurately reports one partner.

Reproductive Variance

Reporting of the number of sex partners is not only influenced by the overreporting by men and underreporting by women but, more importantly, by the operation of a “micro” version of the macro reproductive variance phenomenon, i.e., more women are having sex than the number of men having sex, by perhaps a large margin. Researchers call this the modern male sexual deficit. The number of women who have sex is more than the number of men who have sex.

More Mothers Than Fathers Throughout History

The macro reproductive variance refers to the variability of reproductive success for human females and males throughout human history. The difference between men who do not reproduce (the have-nots) and those who reproduce prolifically (the haves) is vast. DNA studies by Jason Wilder and colleagues revealed that approximately 80% of women in human history have reproduced (have children), compared to 40% of men. More women are mothers than men are fathers. The human population is descended from twice as many women as men. A few men are siring many children (the Genghis Khan effect).

College Dating Environment – Slightly Better Deal for the Average Guy

One unique dating environment (mating pool) is on modern college campuses, where the sex ratio is approximately 60% women to 40% men. On college campuses, women lower their standards a little bit. They are slightly less choosey. With that ratio, more men of lower mate value/attractiveness get to have sex than in the average population. But even there, the most attractive guys get most of the action.

On the Other Hand – More Women Are Having Sex With Each Other!

3. The mathematical asymmetry of the number of reported partners by men and women (in some reports) is also because more women are having sex with women and not men!

4. Finally, according to Kristen Mitchell (Journal of Sex Research), men might include non-penetrative sexual encounters in their tally of sex partners. Women did not. Hey women, cunnilingus and fellatio are not sex?

Male Promiscuity Can Negatively Affect Genetic Legacy

It is true (as Beccia implies) that there is a point at which male promiscuity negatively affects the survival of his children. Children need the support of both parents to secure a genetic legacy.

Will Not Debate Bateman’s Principle Here*

I will spare the reader an attempt to unpack Beccia’s assertion that geneticist Angus Bateman cherry-picked his data or the integrity of Patricia Gowaty’s biology lab at U.C.L.A. But I don’t believe the studies of fruit flies or even other primates are decisively instructive or preclude the vast evidence related to human sexual selection and reproduction. Yes, the research on the mating habits of non-monogamous female birds is notable, but birds are not homo sapiens. Humans have a 9-month gestation and prolonged infant dependency.

The Coolidge Effect** Is Real

But if you want to use primates, the Coolidge Effect holds up. And it is operative for human males. Novelty works for both sexes, but it is compelling for human males. Beccia’s post does not really dispute the truth of the Coolidge Effect. It is worth noting that women need more novelty inside a pair bond than that required by a man because male sexuality is less complicated.

The Honeymoon Effect

The “honeymoon effect” – bonds caused by the “love hormone,” oxytocin, is also real. But oxytocin is more instrumental to women’s sexuality and sexual functioning than to men’s. (This leads to the conversation about the female orgasm as a male mate selection strategy –- female orgasm increases the chance of being chosen and being retained as a mate.)

Honeymoon Effect Coexists with Coolidge

Bottomline: the honeymoon effect does not preclude the male need for partner novelty; it does not contradict the operation of the Coolidge Effect.

What is Beccia’s Beef – Really?

Finally, I do not understand Beccia’s psychological schema around these issues. Why does she refuse to accept the evolutionary and biological science of human sexual selection and human sexuality? Why does she misrepresent the claim and evidence of evolutionary psychology? EP is not “bullshit.” “Boys will be boys” is never uttered by reputable researchers in this field. Beccia is an empowered woman. She is probably sexier and more sexual than average. Good for her. Many men desire her, no doubt (she is quite attractive), but I bet she chooses very few. Beccia probably exists on the robust side of the bell curve from the average woman in terms of sex drive/desire, access, and socio-sexuality.

Rectify Inequities – But Don’t Blur Biological Distinctions Between Male and Female

I have studied the hard biological science of aggregate populations throughout human history. I study researchers who do not, as a rule, have an agenda or bias to shape the nature-nurture debate in favor of women to rectify historical power inequities. The Beccia post is representative of this bias. Let’s rectify power inequities without blurring the biological distinctions between males and females. 

*Bateman’s principle (in evolutionary biology): since males produce millions of sperm cells with little effort and females invest much higher energy levels to nurture a relatively small number of eggs, the female plays a more significant role in their offspring’s reproductive success. Bateman’s paradigm views females as the limiting factor of parental investment, over which males will compete to mate successfully.

**The Coolidge effect is a biological phenomenon seen in animals whereby males exhibit renewed sexual interest whenever a new female is introduced, even after sex with prior but still available sexual partners.

 

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
Gamma Bias: Cognitive Distortions About Sex and Gender

Gamma Bias: Cognitive Distortions About Sex and Gender

“Although we live in times where we rightly talk about the conscious and unconscious bias against women, we are not yet conscious of our biases against men.” ~ Martin Seager and John Barry

A bias is a prejudice in favor of or against a thing, person, or group usually considered unfair, misleading, or a direct distortion of the truth.

“Gamma” bias is a form of cognitive distortion that builds on the existing concepts of alpha bias and beta bias. Alpha bias is the magnification of gender differences. Beta bias* is the minimization of gender differences. Gamma bias illustrates how these opposing distortions can operate simultaneously.

Gamma Bias and Gender
Gamma bias is a form of cognitive distortion that operates within a matrix of four possible judgments about gender**: 
  1. Doing good (celebration/valuing)
  2. Doing harm (perpetration)
  3. Receiving good (privilege)
  4. Receiving harm (victimhood)
Gamma Bias has an Ugly, Unfriendly Face

As described recently by British psychologists Martin Seager and John Barry in “Gamma Bias: A New Theory” (The Psychologist), the theory predicts:

  • Within mainstream Western cultures, masculinity is highlighted only in the domains of privilege (receiving good) and perpetration (doing harm).
  • Masculinity is hidden in the domains of celebration (doing good, heroism, etc.) and victimhood. Heroism may be gender neutralized (“firefighters”), and male victimization by women domestically is excluded in gender narratives.

Effects of Gamma Bias on Men and Women 

  • Men receive less credit for doing good and less support for being victimized.
  • Women receive more significant support for being victimized and are held less accountable for being perpetrators.
Summary of Four Judgments Related to Gender
revised gender distortion matrix
Female Privilege is Ignored in Gamma Bias

Though not explicitly addressed by Seager and Barry, female privilege (female receipt of “good” benefits) is almost entirely unaddressed because of gamma bias. This is a critical oversight for understanding the preeminence of female choice in mate selection as a gender-specific privilege.

This privilege is demonstrated by the exchange of sexual access (fertility) for resources and security inherent in the unconscious sexual psychologies for reproduction and childrearing — the supply and demand dynamics of millions of sperm (and hundreds of men) chasing one, quite privileged egg. Physically attractive, fertile-aged women (in the West) have significant privilege in securing mates and advantages in other domains of life.

The Four Judgments Operate Independently

All four judgments can operate concurrently; the opposing distortions are not zero-sum.

  • Women can be victims and perpetrators.
  • Women can be privileged and be victims.
  • Men can be heroes and perpetrators.
  • Men can be privileged and victims.

The four cognitive distortions function as independent “dials” of influence.  Each dial operates on a continuum or gradient of strength; they are not on-off switches.

Gamma Bias is Pernicious – Let’s Do Better

Gamma bias has an ugly, unfriendly face. It has never been more pernicious in American culture than it is now. Let’s be aware of our judgments, pay attention to our narratives, and be fair to all.

 

Notes:

*Beta bias is more characteristic of today’s narrative about gender and sex. It often includes minimization of biological differences between males and females.

**“Gender,” used here, means biological females (presenting as women) and biological males (presenting as men).

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
Why Bella’s Sexuality in Poor Things Disturbs Men

Why Bella’s Sexuality in Poor Things Disturbs Men

“You mean I actually get paid for that?”
~ Bella Baxter

Bella is a female Frankenstein “monster” in the movie Poor Things. For most of the film, she is an unbridled child with primal sexual urges detonating within her adult female body – a kind of “erotomania.” Bella scares the sh…t out of men.

Bella does some “whoring” in a Paris brothel to find herself. She discovers that her sexuality is easily exchanged for money. Bella acknowledges and accepts the utility of her sexual passion, saying, “I am my own means of production.” But that is not what scares men. She most disturbs men when she inquires with amazement: “You mean, I actually get paid for that?” Let me explain.

Bella’s Sexuality is Outside the Norm

Evolutionary psychology, mate selection science, and studies of female sexuality describe long-term and short-term mating strategies of women, both ancient and modern in their relevance. Bella’s sexuality is outside the understood norms of mate selection science. (See Long-term and Short-term Mating Strategies: Domain #2 of Male-Female Differences.)

 
Women’s Long-term Mating Strategy

A woman’s long-term heterosexual mating strategy seeks a sexual relationship with a man who has the resources and character traits that ensure stability, protection, and loyalty to her and her children over the long term.

Women’s Short-term Mating Strategy

A woman’s short-term mating strategy seeks, first and foremost, genetic fitness in male sexual partners – traits of muscularity, strength, masculinity, and features associated with symmetry. Short-term mates need only minimal generosity and kindness – but may require a modest amount of resources (less than required in the long-term strategy) in case of pregnancy or the desire to switch mates. (See Mate Switching Hypothesis).

A woman’s short-term strategy is not dominant in female mate selection; it is secondary and selective. But rarely is the sex act itself the only reason.

Why Women Have Sex

In research for their book Why Women Have Sex, Cindy Meston and David Buss surveyed 1006 women in seven countries about their reasons for having sex (defined as sexual intercourse.) Two-hundred and thirty-seven (237) reasons were identified. The number one reason given was related to “biochemical attraction” – what Buss and Meston said conferred unconscious signals for genetic and resource benefits. The #2 reason was “because it feels good” – to experience pleasure. But this was never the only reason. Of paramount importance was the need to experience love and enhance an emotional bond.

Buss and Meston concluded: “What motivates a woman to have sex is often multifaceted, containing various combinations of motivation. It is a fungible asset that provides great utility to secure many tangible and intangible benefits.” For more on the topic, see the Mating Straight Talk page Why Women Have Sex.

But Bella Wants Sex Only for the Sensory Feedback

A woman’s short-term, potentially non-monogamous mating strategy is concerned with a man’s genetic material, resources, and sometimes the goal of securing a long-term mate. It is not about sex as an end in and of itself.

That is why Bella in Poor Things is so disturbing. In her sexual awakening, Bella seeks a singular experience of titillation and release. Her pleasure is entirely a personal event of her nervous system; it is not interpersonal.

Male-oriented porn depicts sex as an end in and of itself. No form of women’s erotica (or modern female sexuality in practice) depicts sex that way.

Sex For Money

Bella eventually discovers the “fungibility” of her sexuality in the Parisian bordello. Sex for money becomes her motivation. Her sexuality is a business. But sex for resources is not where she starts. Initially, she can’t believe she will be paid for something so inherently pleasurable. Bella’s lesbian encounters with her female bordello friend are not in the context of her sexual fluidity or bisexuality. No, Bella, at that point, is more of a pansexual – up for anything that turns her on

Females Sexuality with No Moral Compass

Bella scares heterosexual men because, in the early exploration of her sexuality, she acts like a man with a strong sex drive and no moral compass. She acts like some gay men who have unrestrained access to express their sex drive with like-minded men. (No judgment here — just the statistical facts about the ease and frequency/quantity of lovers for gay men.) Ultimately, Bella’s early sexuality is an existential threat to men and their evolutionary need to be chosen in competition with other men. There would be no loyalty to a man who had “competed” successfully for her because she cannot be “won.” There would be no paternal certainty or genetic legacy with Bella, which is a preeminent directive of sexual selection.

Bella As Feminist Crusader

By the conclusion of this science fiction story, Bella’s primitive self “evolves” into a wise philosophical narrator (even a philanthropic “do-gooder”). Along her journey of adult self-discovery, Bella articulates a clear, feminist, anti-misogynist message, adding a dose of sweet revenge. Good for her. “Evolved” Bella does seem to have some allegiance to the doctor scientist who wants to marry her.

The Book Behind It All

Poor Things, the movie, is based on Alasdair Gray’s novel (of the same name) about a young woman who frees herself from the confines of the suffocating Victorian society she was created to serve. Poor Things (the book) is a hilarious political allegory and a thought-provoking duel between men’s desires and women’s independence.

Who Are the “Poor Things?”

Bella develops an awareness of the poor and oppressed while in Alexandria. However, some reviewers have said that it is the men of that time (including her sadistic former husband) who are the “poor things.” But modern male moviegoers may also be troubled by Bella’s sexual liberation and independence from the rules of romantic partnership.

Bella is a Heroine

For all its explicit sex and foul-mouthed dialogue, Poor Things (the movie) is a romance about a woman learning to fall in love with herself, no matter what others think she should be. For that reason alone, Bella is a cinematic heroine, and Poor Things is a unique piece of artistry.

 

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
What Am I Made For?  Barbie Goes Beyond The Battle of the Sexes

What Am I Made For? Barbie Goes Beyond The Battle of the Sexes

“I don’t know how to feel, but I wanna try.”
~ Barbie speaks through Billie Eilish

At the end of the movie Barbie, Ruth Handler (creator of Barbie) tells Barbie: “You should not take this leap into the real world unless you know what this means.”

Ruth gently holds Barbie’s hands. She asks Barbie to close her eyes and feel, and Barbie sees images of girls and women of various ages. She sees (as do we) images of mothers and children embracing, connecting, playing, and bonding. This montage – made from footage that Gerwig sourced from the film’s cast and crew, fills Barbie with emotion as she understands the full scope of womanhood, including birth, childhood, motherhood, and generational love. We see the entire life cycle as a female human being and the expressions of female emotions. It is quite beautiful. Barbie says, “Yes,” she wants this.

“I Don’t Know How to Feel, But I Want to Try”

As the video montage runs, the movie is essentially over; it is easy to dismiss or not fully “see” this fleeting black-and-white montage — or truly savor the haunting melody and poignant lyrics of Billie Eilish singing, What Was I Made For? The images are more profound because of this background music. Eilish wrote this song specifically for Barbie in an immersed zone of connection; she channels the critical message at the movie’s end with this chorus: “I don’t know how to feel, but I wanna try. I don’t know how to feel, but someday I might.”

Please watch and listen to the video. (Lyrics in video and in the Appendix.)

 

Barbie Enters the Human World of Mate Selection and Sexuality

Barbieland is asexual and non-maternal; it has no children. The entire film is devoid of young children until the scene with Ruth. When stereotypical Barbie (Margot Robbie) goes to the real world, she owns her sexual reproductive instincts and visits the gynecologist. She enters the real world of mating and dating; Barbie must begin to swim in the streams of heterosexual dynamics with men.

Sexual Reproduction and Motherhood Are Aspirational

The real-world “Kens” come fully equipped, and they do know (unlike Kens in Barbieland) why they might want to sleep over with Barbie. This is the world that Barbie must navigate to fulfill Ruth’s assertion and promise. Sexual reproduction and motherhood are included in the mix of aspirations for Barbies to be anything they want to be.

Gerwig and Motherhood

During the writing of Barbie, Greta Gerwig was nursing and attending to her new baby boy, Harold, with partner Noah Baumbach. Gerwig and Baumbach had another baby boy in March 2023. So, two kids were on the Barbie promotion circuit under the watchful eye of their mother. Suffice to say, being a mother is one crucial element of Gerwig’s personality. Mattel discontinued Pregnant Barbie, but Gerwig had not lost sight of this part of the female experience, even though there is no maternal instinct in Barbieland. (Gloria and Sasha represent a central mother-daughter plot in the real world.)

Feminism Includes Motherhood

Gerwig is undoubtedly not endorsing a return to 1950s motherhood – being a wife and stay-at-home mother (often pregnant). Gerwig’s feminism includes maternity as an option. It is part of the natural order for many women, even women with creative, full-time careers.
“In creating Barbie,” Ruth Handler explained, “my philosophy was that, through the doll, girls could become anything they wanted to be. Barbie has always represented a woman who chooses for herself.”

Barbies Do Not Have an Ending, But Humans Do

Ruth tells Barbie: “Humans only have one ending. Ideas live forever.” Barbie accepts that she will die. Barbie says “yes” to entering the real world because the experience of human emotion is what we are made for.

Old Woman on A Bench

In one scene, Barbie sees an old woman on a bench and tells her, “You are beautiful.” The woman says, “Yes, I know.” This is not a commentary on physical attractiveness or even the inner beauty of older people; it is an endorsement of the beauty of the full spectrum of human experience.

Barbie Wants to Imagine as Subject, Not Object

“I want to be the one imagining, not the idea.”

When Barbie decides whether to return to a worry-free life or experience humanity (the opposite), she says, “I want to be the one imagining, not the idea.” Barbie’s desire to be subject, not object, is a longing felt by human women whose worth in society is often measured by how aesthetically pleasing they are to men. (Many women have a place in their sexuality for being “object,” but that is another topic.) Barbie would be more objectified in the real world than in Barbieland, so why does she want to be human?

Female Emotion as a Strength

The reason to be human is the exaltation of feeling the range of human emotions, especially as a woman. The ending to Barbie shows women’s emotions as a strength, not a weakness. A central thesis of Barbie may be that emotion isn’t just an accessory to the human experience – it plays a vital role in making the human experience worthwhile.

Barbie Wants the Human Experience – She Wants “Ubuntu”

“Ubuntu” is a South African term popularized by Desmond Tuto. Ubuntu means “I am what I am because of who we all are.” You cannot exist as a human being in isolation. We are interconnected. People are not people without other people.

We Even Need People We Have Never Met

 Barbie experiences memories of people she has never met, but that’s the whole point: We don’t have to know the women in the montage to resonate with them. Female moviegoers across the globe connected to this scene in ineffable ways – they cried together, not always knowing why they were sad or moved. (Men cried too, empathizing with the spirituality of the human experience, longing for their mother, or even longing for their father and a similar intergenerational bond between boys and men.)

The Infinite Chain

The essence of womanhood and humanity has nothing to do with careers or pink outfits. By taking Ruth’s hand, Barbie becomes another link in an infinite chain of mothers and children. She glimpses a sweet intergenerational heritage of beings incarnated as Homo sapiens — an experience not available to her as a fictional construct. Barbie feels a spiritual connection between generations of women, passing down their hopes and dreams for a better world. Barbie becomes human.

Now She is Barbara Handler

Final scene: Barbie walks up to a reception desk (in her pink Birkenstock sandals) and says: “I’m here to see my gynecologist.” Barbie is now “Barbara” and part of the legacy of female creation and personhood. She’s a Handler now, like Ruth.

Barbie’s Transition: Maslow’s Hierarchy and Attachment Bond

Briefly shifting gears, please allow me to connect Barbie to psychological theory. You might be familiar with Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Maslow believed that we begin life by trying to satisfy physiological and social motives (love, belonging, and esteem /respect), which he viewed as deficiency needs. If you fulfill those deficiency needs, you can move on to growth needs; the highest level is self-actualization. Maslow’s work was done before the modern integration of evolutionary biology and psychology, so he gave no attention to the central Darwinian themes of reproduction. Maslow gave incomplete attention to one of the essential elements of Barbie’s transition — the preeminence of the attachment bond between mothers and children.

Barbie and the New Hierarchy of Human Motivations

After studying the evolutionary psychology of human motives for 20 years, psychologist and researcher Douglas Kenrick (Solving Modern Problems with a Stone-Age Brain) updated Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to reflect developments in the behavioral and biological sciences. Self-actualization was removed from its hallowed place at the top.

Finding Mates, Retaining Mates, and Parenting

The new hierarchy of human motives addresses the missing goal that is paramount from a Darwinian perspective, adding three more layers associated with reproduction: finding mates, retaining mates, and parenting. In this new model, the seven human needs or motivations are not stacked on top of one another but are seen as overlapping. Yet, Kenrick suggested that kin care, or parenting, is the ultimate goal of humanity.

What Was I Made For?

According to Kenrick, if you have young children, parenting motives become increasingly linked to your sense of self-actualization and meaning in life. Cue the Barbie movie montage of women, relationships, and human emotions. Cue the Billie Eilish song. This answers Barbie’s question: what was I made for? You were made for acquiring a mate, retaining a mate, and taking care of your family (and the families of all women) with all its attendant joys and pathos. Ruth holds Barbie’s hands and shows her that this is what it means to take the leap from Barbieland into the real world of humanity.

Postscript: What I Left Unsaid About Barbie (related to the film’s message, not its production)

This post and my last post on Barbie (Unpacking Barbie’s Apotheosis – Which Complaints Hold Up Under Scrutiny?) can be seen as bookends in tone: embracing and honoring the human-female experience vs. a detailed critique of Barbie’s central feminist message. But there is a lot left on the table to talk about; I just choose to move on.

Left unsaid and not fully discussed by me:

  • Barbie’s misandry (the movie is anti-male on the surface): no men in Barbieland or in the real world have any redeeming qualities. They are portrayed as silly, stupid buffoons — superfluous for the most part and oddly attached to horses. (Allen is a special case that does not disprove the point.)
  • After the Barbies retook Barbieland, it was close to an apartheid state for men. Men will have no voice or real representation — less representation than women in the real world. (It is unclear if the Kens get places to live.)
  • Barbies use trickery and their erotic power over men to retake Barbieland. They lie to the men when they act interested in what the men are saying or singing. Barbies strategically use jealousy (intra-sexual competition) between the men to cause them to fight one another. (This is of course common in the real world, but it is almost interesting here, given Barbieland is supposedly an asexual environment.)
  • Relatedly, Barbies exploit male fragility; the movie does have relevant things to say about the fragility of men. Kens need a Barbie more than Barbies need a Ken. There is an existential threat to men if they are not sexually acceptable to a woman. Ken: “I only exist within the warmth of your gaze.” And, “Barbie has a great day everyday, but Ken has a great day only if Barbie looks at him.” Ultimately, Ken might be “enough” of a nice guy, but he will not be a suitable sex partner or mate. Barbie is not interested. Full stop.
  • There are perhaps relevant reflections (and reviews to share) about non-binary gender presentation and even implied queer sexual preference in Barbie.
  • There is a rise of bimbo feminism (especially on TikTok) in response to this movie – the combination of hyper-femininity and feminism.
  • There is a message about patriarchy via Mattel’s corporate capitalism windfall.
  • There is a twist on the creation myth: analog to the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve.
  • There is a possible connection in the Barbie video montage to the alloparenting instinct – pair bonds with fellow female alloparents who help raise children. (see It Takes a Village – Alloparenting and Female Sexual Fluidity.
Final thoughts: Barbie is Allegory and Satire

Given all this, it is important to remember that the movie Barbie is an allegory and satire. Greta Gerwig is a sly filmmaker. As the marketing promotion said: if you love Barbie, you will love this movie. If you hate Barbie, you will love this movie. But you might hate this movie in both cases. Not me. I was intrigued and stimulated more than I wanted to be. I cannot hate that.

Appendix

What Was I Made for – Lyrics by Billie Eilish

I used to float, now I just fall down
I used to know but I’m not sure now
What I was made for
What was I made for?

Takin’ a drive, I was an ideal
Looked so alive, turns out I’m not real
Just something you paid for
What was I made for?

(Chorus)

‘Cause I, ’cause I
I don’t know how to feel
But I wanna try
I don’t know how to feel
But someday I might
Someday I might

When did it end? All the enjoyment
I’m sad again, don’t tell my boyfriend
It’s not what he’s made for
What was I made for?

‘Cause I, ’cause I
I don’t know how to feel
But I wanna try
I don’t know how to feel
But someday I might
Someday I might

Think I forgot how to be happy
Something I’m not, but something I can be
Something I wait for
Something I’m made for
Something I’m made for

 

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text.