Wokeism: Good, Bad, and Misguided – a View from Mate Selection Science

Wokeism: Good, Bad, and Misguided – a View from Mate Selection Science

by | Feb 15, 2025 | Biological Difference, Evolutionary Science and Our Political Divide, Gender Politics, Men's Issues

Prologue and Caveat – Let’s Be More Woke

Before I get into the issues of non-binary advocacy and problems with contemporary “wokeism,” as promised last week (What Does Non-Binary Mean? Biology and Politics Collide), I must revisit the true meaning of “woke” and rehabilitate its power at this moment in the early days of the Trump presidency.

“Woke” was a term borrowed from the black civil rights movement that signaled awareness of systemic injustices and a commitment to combating them.

At its root, being “woke” means being awake to (aware of) the things happening around you – including speaking out and not capitulating out of ignorance, denial, self-interest, or fear. Nothing wrong with that if one does not get “too righteous” or “elitist” in tone.

Trump, Musk, and their minions are now engaged in a soft but fast-paced coup of the U.S. federal system and the Constitution. Right now, we need to be MORE AWAKE, not less. We need to resist. I endorse being more woke to save our democracy. To quote “Elon the Great,” “we are at a fork in the road.”

Currents and Countercurrents of “Wokeness.” What a mess.

To complicate the central message of this post almost beyond recognition (and make it even less palatable to my gay friends), we now have a significant backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and a cessation of hiring targets from dozens of private companies.

Google will no longer mark cultural observances like Pride Month, Women’s History Month, and Black History Month. This is a symbolic but nasty overreach against justice and inclusion. It is another form of the fast-paced coup and demonstrates more capitulation to investors and the Trump administration — performative virtue signaling on the other end of the political spectrum.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump said his administration is moving to “abolish all discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion nonsense,” in both the government and the private sector.” Nonsense? What a mess.

(Ok, let’s shift gears and follow up from the last post through the lens of evolutionary psychology and mate selection science. The serious-minded should read the notes at the end.)

The “Wokescenti”

As wokeism infiltrated culture in the last decade, it often constructed hierarchies of moral superiority, intellectual elitism, and cultural gatekeeping, at least in the minds of the political Right. Wokeism began to accrue layers of performative virtue signaling. Meghan Daum’s term “wokescenti”* described a social class of progressive elites who wielded their “enlightened” views like a weapon, silencing descent under the guise of social justice. Yes, sometimes they do.

But the political Right mostly invented the idea of woke elites to mischaracterize their positions and demean their informed views. Science be damned. The college-educated were latte-drinking woke liberals, basking in their self-righteous superiority.

Political Implications of Non-binary Advocacy

Non-binary advocacy (and psychological identity trend) is prone to political motivation and tones of elitist “wokeism.” Such advocacy is warranted for marginalized groups within the broad and diverse LGBTQAI+ community.

But there may be a more profound purpose not openly stated: to weaken men (or “patriarchy” as they define it) and empower women generally.

Giving more power to women and less to men is arguably a good thing – but this advocacy can run off the rails of factual clarity and the rights of free speech.

Posturing and Virtue Signaling – Bad Habits of Wokeism

Modern “wokeism” is known for the display (signal) of “virtue,” or so-called “enlightened thinking,” by giving preference to the rights of oppressed communities. This awareness of outlier group identities provides a stepping stool to an elitist moral high ground, bolstering status as a sophisticated person or organization. Among Gen Z it is, no doubt, “cool” to be queer.

“Virtue signaling” can be seen every single day in advertising. Companies rush to showcase their inclusivity, saturating screens with images of interracial couples and sexual preference diversity. The line between authentic advocacy and virtue signaling is often blurred. Those companies and media productions are clearly “woke.”

Even NFL Football – as Woke as it Gets

In the recent Superbowl commercial (Leave the Past Behind), the NFL assumed it was ok to stereotype teenage boys as stupid, mean, and physically hapless when competing against girls. Featuring a white boy and black girl one-on-one, this was an unnecessary anti-male plot line used to promote girl’s flag football in high schools.

The girls outperformed the boys in a biologically inaccurate comparison of physical strength and agility. Bucking the recent trend by companies cited above, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell recently said the NFL would continue its diversity efforts; this commercial aligns with that position.

Wokeism Supports a Social Constructivist Model of Human Difference

Contemporary wokeism primarily supports a social constructivist model of human difference. It over-emphasizes the impact of “nurture” and social conditioning and downplays the forces of nature and biology.

Evolutionary psychologists and sociobiologists know that learning (culture) and evolutionary adaptation work together – they do not conflict; they are natural explanatory partners.** Social activism, especially the most woke version, should not throw out biology to make its case.

Sometimes, this emphasis on social conditioning paradoxically conflicts with some of the claims by marginalized groups as it relates to biological sex, gender expression, and (especially) sexual preference (e.g., being born gay.)

Wokeism Paradoxically Stifles Free Speech

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of modern wokeism is its tendency to stifle free speech. Free speech was once seen as the epitome of enlightened thinking and inclusivity. But in recent years, conservative or libertarian voices have been drowned out on college campuses. Cancel culture is used as a tool of suppression. That is antithetical to a liberal education.

Men’s rights advocates (not necessarily conservative or libertarian politically) were shouted down in Canada and universities in the U.S.

Authors and advocates of a biological, evolutionary-based view of male and female differences have also been silenced or censored.

Woke Activism Does Not Include Men (or at least not White Men)

Woke activism does not include men. Wokeness does not acknowledge the legitimate concerns of men’s rights groups.

Embedded in this rationale to discount the impact on men is a pernicious premise (within the concept of patriarchy) that all men have all the power. Class intersectionality is conveniently forgotten when applied to men. Poor men, by fiat, are seen as part of an oppressive patriarchy.

To underscore this point, let me share the incisive observation of Meghan Daum:*

 For all their thinking about theories of intersectionality among oppressed groups, too many women seem to have difficulty understanding why a homeless man who whistles at a young woman as she’s off to her fancy internship every morning is not exactly a foot soldier for the patriarchy.

Mate Selection Science Recasts the Premise of the Patriarchy

As mentioned in the last post, the term “non-binary” gained traction in feminist-driven gender studies academic programs. Empowering women is a worthy goal.

However, such empowerment should also acknowledge (get ready for a heavy lift):

  • the sexual selection forces on male and female behavior,
  • the power of female preference in mate selection,
  • the collusion of women to create an uphold class hierarchy, and
  • the negative impact on men (of all races) when socioeconomic intersectionality is not applied to them.

Such acknowledgment recasts the premise of patriarchy.

Trans/Non-binary/Queer advocacy sometimes aims to:

  • De-legitimize the biological and psychological differences between the sexes – male and female. One definition of non-binary (What Does Non-Binary Mean? Biology and Politics Collide) is “neither male nor female.”
  • De-legitimize male sexuality and demonize “maleness” with subtle or not-so-subtle expressions of misandry. (See the NFL commercial above.)
  • De-legitimize or deny the existence of the male-female mating economy and the economic-erotic bargain (exchange of resources for sexual access).
  • This “bargain” is an ancient (primarily unconscious) infrastructure that rules human/primate (heterosexual) sexual reproduction and creates the expression of power and dominance hierarchies.***
  • Deny that women help create “patriarchy” and willingly participate in the economic-erotic bargain.

“Woke” Advocacy Mutes the Wisdom of Mate Selection Science

Modern dynamics of heterosexual mate selection are complicated. There are unique vulgarities of dating in the digital world, changing economics for men, and six decades of female empowerment to assimilate into contemporary male-female dynamics.

There is a (long) list of traits women prefer in their mate, some of which do not easily coexist, that exerts enormous complexity into female choice. But the ancient infrastructure, biologically and culturally encoded by thousands of years of evolutionary adaptation, remains as follows:

Men desire power and resources because women desire men who have power and resources. Female choice of mates in sexual selection drives male behavior in nearly all mammals. Female choice is the “first cause.” The motivation of men and women in sexual selection drives most human behavior and forms a symbiotic alliance.

Being Woke as Liberation

Owning our evolutionary adaptations for human reproduction may be necessary for us to be fully awake to our world. Acknowledging our biological underpinnings does not undermine the quest for equality; rather, it enriches our understanding of the forces that shape society. Being “woke” to that is not a bad habit; it is liberation and a beginning.

Acknowledging and upholding fundamental human rights and the truth that diverse teams are more productive and creative than homogeneous teams (in most cases) is also a necessary part of being awake to the world that is emerging. Being “woke” in that way is the only way forward.

One Final Reminder: Our Form of Government is Threatened

American constitutional democracy, with checks and balances, is under assault. Governmental agencies are being purged. Guard rails to protect everyday Americans are being torn down. We do not want a presidential oligarchy and kleptocracy. “I have a dream.” Let’s be “woke” to that!

Notes

*The Problem With Everything, My Journey Though the New Culture Wars, Meghan Daum, 2019

**Evolution and Learning Are Not in Conflict
Construing evolution and learning as automatically in conflict is a mistake. They are not located at the same level of analysis. Learning is a proximate explanation, whereas evolution is an ultimate one. The proximate level of analysis explains how something works, whereas the ultimate level explains why it works that way.

To say that something is a product of evolution does not imply anything about how the behavior comes about during an organism’s lifespan. Furthermore, evolutionary thinking does not suggest that behavior will be uniform across cultures but that the neurocognitive machinery that produces behavior will be uniform across cultures.

Mate selection science primarily studies the neurocognitive machinery at the ultimate level of cause – the essential components for mating and reproduction across all animal and human cultures.

***The Bargain is Part of our Neurocognitive Machinery
The bargain is more subtle and diffuse (if not undiscussable) in modern dating because it now rests primarily upon a foundation of “woke” feminist empowerment narratives.

But it remains pre-eminent or prioritized in mate choice as heterosexual women (primarily, but not entirely, of child-bearing age) navigate a tension or trade-off question: what is the necessary balance between provider-ship power and the character traits that guarantee the caretaking of children?

This question and the “bargain” are at the ultimate level of underlying neurocognitive machinery.

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 Does Non-Binary Mean? Biology and Politics Collide

What Does Non-Binary Mean? Biology and Politics Collide

by | Feb 1, 2025 | Biological Difference, Gender Politics, Sexuality, Tips for Couples

President Trump has issued an order that requires federal agencies to recognize only two sexes, male and female. It says: “These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.” Advocacy groups say, “The true intent of the order is to demonize, stigmatize, and discriminate against transgender, non-binary, and intersex people and to enforce gender roles and gender stereotypes.”

They are both right.

But it is a matter of definition and the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender.”

History of Non-binary Identities

The concept of non-binary identities has existed in many countries and cultures throughout history, according to some historians and advocates. The term “non-binary” emerged in the West in the 1990s and early 2000s and began gaining traction as part of academic and activist discourse in queer and gender studies. In the 2010s, with the rise of social media and greater LGBTQIA+ visibility, “non-binary” became widely recognized and adopted, particularly among younger generations.

Individual Expressions of Gender

“Non-binary” is a subjective, psychological identity “bucket” that exists independent of the biological components of male and female (i.e., chromosomes, gonads, genitality, gametes, and hormones.)

“Non-binary” identity is a concept within a broad array of expressions of “gender” – a reflection of multitudinous individual choice. In this context, gender is not necessarily contained or constrained by a binary of masculinity and femininity. It exists as a unique configuration or “menu” of masculine and feminine traits or expressions, or by definition, independent of masculine and feminine altogether. (For a deeper dive, See Alex Byrne’s (Trouble with Gender) categories of gender.*)

What Are the Possible Meanings of Non-binary?

What are the possible meanings of “non-binary” identity, using a binary to mean “masculinity” and “femininity?” These meanings, identified below, are derived from logic, not survey data. Notably, sourcing from advocates and researchers (using AI prompts) reveals aggregate impressions aligning with the logical possibilities.

Non-binary is not Biological Sex

Most importantly, “non-binary” is not derived from biological determinations of sex. Biological sex is binary using one particular criterion. There are only two sexes, male and female, because there are only two gametes: sperm and egg. Some might argue that using gametes as the final arbiter of “sex” is cherry-picking the biological diversity (see components above) of humans. Still, it is a powerful argument embraced by most biologists. Sex is viewed as inextricably tied to the gametes of human reproduction.

What Might Non-Binary Mean if Unpacked Logically?

Non-binary could mean:

  1. Masculinity and femininity are expressed simultaneously, each with its own “dial” of strength or emphasis, depending on the context. At any given moment, masculinity and femininity occur on a continuum of expression. This logic implies that these dials offset one another, sharing a proportion of 100% expression.
  2. A capacity for masculine or female expression that operates not as a dial but as an on-off switch. Sometimes, a person is only masculine, and sometimes, only feminine. In practice, this might be hard to discern as separate from the simultaneous identity model. However, an on-off “switch” is a logical possibility as an individual identity definition.
  3. Neither “male” nor “female:” — a person may use non-binary to mean they do not identify as having masculinity or femininity. This identity framing does not clarify an understanding of their behavior, presentation, or motivation for others. Yet, it is a legitimate identity proclamation that cannot be “debated” by observers, even if it does not communicate much about what the person wants and needs regarding a “container” called gender. However, if the non-binary person says they are neither male nor female in the biological sense, that becomes disprovable with clinical diagnostics.

Disorders of Sexual Development are not Evidence of the Non-Binary

Disorders of sexual development are biologically defined and may be conflated incorrectly with non-binary identities. Disorders of sexual development have biological variations in chromosomes, gonads, genitality, gametes, and hormones. They are quite rare (contrary to the estimates given by advocacy groups). And, while an “intersex” person or a person with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) may not have either an egg or sperm cell, there are still only two gametes, not a third one.

Trans-sexual Identity Relies on a Binary Framework

Trans-sexual identities usually rely on a binary framework to explain gender dysphoria. Few people transition from one non-binary identity into another non-binary identity, although that appears to be changing. Some trans individuals have now adopted “gender” identity terms to describe who they “were” and what they are becoming. What was formally a transition from either male to female (MtF) or female to male (FtM) can now be, for example, “assigned male at birth” (AMAB) to even a non-binary identity. Again, “gender” identity proclamations have no limits. (Some might say, derisively, no guard rails.)

Sexual Preference Identities are Independent of Non-binary

Sexual preference identities are independent of the non-binary concept altogether. Neither biological sex nor gender identity signifies sexual preference: gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, pansexual, demisexual, or asexual. Sexual preference does not (btw) predict actual behavior (e.g., bisexuality is potentially a continuum or percentage of preference and behavior depending upon conditions).

Trump’s Order is Mostly Ignorant and Cruel

Donald Trump and the Republican party have aptly demonstrated that they do not know the difference between biological sex and gender, even if they may be technically correct in the wording of the order. God knows they do not understand how gender presentation is a separate consideration for psychological identity. They do not understand that sexual preference is independent of biological sex and gender. They (among others – including advocates) do not understand that transsexual issues (gender dysphoria) are not only independent of sexual preference but even independent of the debate about only “two sexes.”

However (it must be said), it is not “fair” for transwomen, who go through male puberty before transition, to compete in women’s sports. But that is so rare as to qualify as a red herring argument used primarily for political provocation targeting trans rights overall.

Let’s Be Clear-Headed and Not Cruel

We could make progress if we used clear definitions and good intentions to separate biology from political advocacy. All people deserve dignity, respect, and the right to claim whatever identity they choose. At the same time, let’s get the biology right.

Stay Tuned

Next blog post coming: Political and Social Implications of Non-binary Advocacy – Bad Habits of Wokeism

*Alex Byrne’s (Trouble with Gender) categories of gender:

1. Gender as femininity and masculinity
2. Gender as social roles
3. Gender identity (psychological sex)
4. Gender as “woman” and “man”

Addendum — Chat GPT on Frequency of Non-binary in U.S.

Estimating the number of individuals in the United States identifying as non-binary involves analyzing data from various studies and surveys. According to a 2021 report by the Williams Institute, approximately 1.2 million LGBTQ adults aged 18 to 60 in the U.S. identify as non-binary, representing about 11% of the LGBTQ adult population within that age range. Notably, a significant majority of these non-binary adults are younger:

  • Age Distribution:
    • 76% are between the ages of 18 and 29.
    • 24% are between the ages of 30 and 60.

This data indicates that non-binary identification is more prevalent among younger adults. Further supporting this trend, a 2022 survey by the Pew Research Center found that 5.1% of adults under 30 identify as transgender or non-binary, compared to 1.6% of those aged 30 to 49 and 0.3% of those aged 50 and older. These findings suggest a generational shift, with younger individuals more likely to identify outside the traditional gender binary.
It’s important to note that these figures are estimates and may vary based on survey methodologies and definitions. Additionally, as societal understanding and acceptance of diverse gender identities continue to evolve, the number of individuals identifying as non-binary may change over time.

 

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
Reasons for Gender Divide in 2024 Election

Reasons for Gender Divide in 2024 Election

by | Oct 25, 2024 | Evolutionary Science and Our Political Divide, Gender Politics, Men's Issues

 

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?

by | Aug 9, 2024 | Biological Difference, Dating & Mating Economy, Evolutionary Science and Our Political Divide, Gender Politics, Relationship Issues

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

by | Jul 13, 2024 | Biological Difference, Dating & Mating Economy, Gender Politics, Relationship Issues, Sexuality, Uncategorized

“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

by | Mar 3, 2024 | Biological Difference, Dating & Mating Economy, Gender Politics, Men's Issues, Relationship Issues

“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.