Much evidence indicates that women are biologically superior to men in social communication. Consider, for example, a leading female professor of evolutionary psychology at Britain’s Durham University. In 2002, her book, A mind of her own: the evolutionary psychology of women, was published by the prestigious Oxford University Press. Oxford produced a second edition of her book, with only minor changes, in 2012. Here’s her scholarly analysis of the fundamental value of men:
we should bear in mind that they {men} are essentially freeloading on women’s effort. Consider this: if we knew our planet was about to be struck by a meteor and only 100 people could be saved in an underground bunker, what proportion of men and women would you put down there? My suggestion would be about 10 men and 90 women. Ten should be able to do an adequate job of impregnating all the women and the fewer the men, the fewer the calories they would consume and the lower the competition between them would be. … The fact is that the majority of men are, biologically speaking, dispensable but when the number of women drops too far, our future looks bleak. [1]
Who built those bunkers? Who would be digging dirt and pouring concrete to maintain them? Who would be collecting the trash? Who would be maintaining the information technology controlling life-support systems for the bunkers? With any appreciation for the history of humanity, one can confidently state that the majority of men are dispensable only if humanity is willing to dispense with civilization. This book fundamentally misunderstands the implications of anisogamy. Its analysis of sexual selection is laughably inferior to that of uncredentialed field reports. That a prestigious university press would publish this book, and republish it, is telling documentation of women’s superiority in social communication. Superiority in social communication can transform misandristic nonsense into credentialed scientific scholarship.
The social problem is far worse that just one book worth ignoring. At the fundamental level of evolutionary psychology, women predominately compete among women in social relations and social communication to gain sexual access to high-status men. Men predominately compete among men to earn or fake high status (money, power, and org titles) to gain sexual access to beautiful, young women.[2] In this sex structure of competition, high-status, ugly, old women get sexually frustrated and bitter. They naturally turn to the social demonization of men’s sexuality and spreading misandry.[3]
Spreading misandry is intellectually easy because public discourse provides little constraint on misandry. Many ordinary men apparently think misandry doesn’t matter. Many ordinary women apparently think misandry serves their interests. Spreading misandry has developed into a key strategy for both women and men leaders.
Notes:
[1] Campbell (2002) p. 62. In the 2012 edition, this passage occurs with insubstantial changes on p. 75.
[2] Resources and reproductive opportunities are typically much more differentiated intersexually than intrasexually. With respect to survival resources, men and woman often pursue different patterns of resource acquisition (hunting versus gathering). With respect to reproductive opportunities, competition for an opposite sex reproductive partner is typically much more intense than competition for same-sex reproductive helpers. The charm of specific individuals can of course transcend these general forces of evolutionary psychology. Old women can be sexually alluring to men.
[3] This problem has become particularly acute at universities. That’s not surprising. The incongruity between status achievement and mating interests is starkly apparent at universities.
[image] Snarling chihuahua. Thanks to David Shankbone and Wikipedia.
Reference:
Campbell, Anne. 2002. A mind of her own: the evolutionary psychology of women. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
