Charlie Kirk vs. Richard Reeves: Messages To Young Men

Charlie Kirk vs. Richard Reeves: Messages To Young Men

by | Oct 4, 2025 | Dating & Mating Economy, Evolutionary Science and Our Political Divide, Gender Politics, Men's Issues

As we process the tragic death of Charlie Kirk, let’s not debate the content of his character; instead, let’s acknowledge and understand the content and legacy of his ideas. ~ S.F.

Charlie Kirk was a powerful voice that spoke to young men in America. As author of over 10 blog posts on Richard Reeves’ book, Of Boys and Men, (introductory post on website below),

https://www.matingstraighttalk.com/visitation-of-a-crisis-in-six-parts/

I feel compelled to consider what Charlie Kirk said to men and boys and compare and contrast that with the diagnosis and solutions offered by Richard Reeves.

In this long post, I address:

  • Kirk’s message to young men
  • Kirk vs. Reeves — diagnosis and solutions: shared concerns and disagreements
  • Kirk’s blind spots related to social and economic policies
  • Criticism of Reeves diagnosis and solutions
  • Summary of agreement and disagreement between Kirk and Reeves
  • Concluding reflections: Kirk’s biblical model of marriage and the mating marketplace
  • Addendum: making matters worse — failures of the Left and the Right

What Messages Did Charlie Kirk Have for Young Men in America?

 “The biblical model for women is to have a partner who is a protector and a leader … and deep down, a vast majority of you agree.” ~ Charlie Kirk

Charlie Kirk built a substantial following among young men by addressing their feelings of alienation and insecurity with messages centered on traditional masculinity, Christian conservatism, and American exceptionalism.

Kirk’s approach combined conservative rhetoric with social media savvy, providing a sense of community for those who felt disenfranchised by mainstream culture and academia.

Embrace Traditional Masculinity and Family Values

A significant aspect of Kirk’s message was his call for young men to embrace traditional gender roles and family structures. He suggested that many of their anxieties stemmed from modern society’s erosion of masculinity and promoted a return to a “mythical past… where men were really men.” This included:

  • Prioritizing marriage and family: He promoted the traditional path of marriage and starting a family.
  • Standing up for beliefs: He encouraged young men to be bold in their convictions, offering a model of audacity that appealed to those who feared expressing conservative views on college campuses and elsewhere.

Overcome Financial Hardship and Embrace Opportunity

Kirk also presented a message of economic empowerment that resonated with young men struggling with financial concerns.

  • Rejecting poverty: He told his audience they did not have to “stay poor” or accept being “worse off than your parents”.
  • Criticizing government spending: He argued that Democrat policies and spending on foreign nations and undocumented immigrants worsened the financial prospects for young Americans.
  • Entrepreneurship over college: In some instances, he advocated for entrepreneurship as an alternative to college, suggesting that one could always return to school later.

Find Strength in Christian Faith

For many young men, Kirk’s open and unapologetic defense of his Christian faith was a significant source of inspiration.

  • His Christian conservative values resonated with followers who felt looked down upon for their religious beliefs in a mainstream, liberal-leaning culture.
  • This defense made his followers feel less lonely and affirmed their values within a supportive community.

Defend Freedom and Engage in Debate

Kirk consistently encouraged young men to engage in what he saw as a battle of ideas, particularly on college campuses.

  • He highlighted what he called the “rigidity of progressive culture.” He promoted and framed campus debates in a way that made young men feel powerful and superior.
  • He founded Turning Point USA to bring young people into the political process and spread his message of “common sense”.
  • He presented himself as a patriot who fought for “liberty, democracy, justice, and the American people” — championing American values.

Leverage a Sense of Shared Grievance

At the heart of Kirk’s message was an understanding of young men’s feelings of social isolation and anxiety.

  • Giving a voice to the voiceless: By offering seemingly simple, traditional narratives, he presented solutions to young men grappling with uncertainty in their lives.
  • Building an online and campus community: He used his platform and organization to create a community for disaffected young men, especially white men, who felt out of step with what he described as overly “woke” culture.

Charlie Kirk vs. Richard Reeves: Diagnosis and Solutions for Boys and Men

“What is needed is a positive vison of masculinity that is compatible with gender equality. We need a prosocial masculinity for a post-feminist world.” ~Richard Reeves

Charlie Kirk and Richard Reeves both acknowledge the existence of significant problems facing boys and men in modern America, including struggles in education, work, and family life.

However, their fundamental diagnoses of the root causes and their proposed solutions differ sharply, stemming from divergent ideological perspectives. Kirk would likely agree with Reeves’s diagnosis on some statistical observations but would reject his solutions as insufficient and ideologically flawed.

Shared Areas of Concern

  • Underperformance in education: Reeves highlights the gender gap in education, noting that boys are now significantly less likely than girls to earn a bachelor’s degree. This would likely resonate with Kirk, who attributes male educational struggles to an “institutionalized attack on manhood” and education policies that disadvantage boys.
  • Decline in the labor market: Both would acknowledge the economic challenges facing many men, including the decline of traditionally male jobs and the stagnation of wages for less-educated men. Kirk would attribute this to broader systemic failures by a liberal establishment, while Reeves views it as a structural challenge requiring new policy interventions.
  • Breakdown of family and social structures: Reeves identifies high rates of fathers not living with their children and the “friendship recession” among men as significant problems. Kirk would wholeheartedly agree with this diagnosis, blaming it on the erosion of traditional marriage and family values, and the rise of a “hook-up culture” driven by what he calls “radical feminism”.

Fundamental Points of Disagreement

Kirk’s “Blind Spots:” Solutions for Men and Boys in the Context of Republican Social, Economic, and Tax Policies

Charlie Kirk’s messaging to young men on economic issues often focused on personal responsibility and criticizing liberal economic policies, without addressing how Republican social, economic, and tax policies might contribute to the very problems he identified. This is a key blind spot in his analysis.

Kirk’s rhetoric framed the struggle of young men in terms of cultural decay and political opposition, but it largely sidestepped the effects of the policies his own movement championed.

Kirk Focused on Cultural Issues Over Economic Structures

Kirk’s primary focus remained on cultural issues, and he often attributed the economic struggles of young men to the “woke” political establishment rather than to structural economic factors.

  • Emphasis on individualism: He emphasized individual empowerment and entrepreneurship as a solution for young men, without a critical examination of how broader economic shifts affect earning potential, especially for those without higher education.
  • Overlooking the wealth gap: While Kirk acknowledged the financial plight of young Americans, he frequently failed to connect this to the growing income and wealth gap exacerbated by tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the wealthy.

Uncritical Support for Republican Tax Policies

Kirk was a staunch supporter of Republican tax cuts, such as the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which lowered the corporate tax rate and primarily benefited the wealthiest Americans.

  • Impact on young families: These policies had little to no effect on addressing the struggles of working-class men trying to achieve traditional milestones, such as buying a home or starting a family. Instead, they added trillions to the national debt, which some economists argue could lead to cuts in social services that aid lower- and middle-income families in the long run.
  • Regressive tax proposals: In August 2025, Kirk floated a flat income tax proposal, which critics quickly pointed out would place a higher tax burden on lower- and middle-income earners while benefiting the wealthy, thereby increasing income inequality.

Inadequate Solutions for Working-class Men

Kirk’s solutions often centered on a revival of traditional masculinity and rejection of perceived liberal excess, which did not adequately address the economic realities faced by many working-class men.

  • Ignoring stagnant wages: He did not provide a coherent explanation for the long-term trend of stagnant wages and reduced bargaining power for blue-collar workers. This trend accelerated during decades of Republican and Democratic deregulation and trade policies.
  • Lack of policy substance: His message lacked concrete policy proposals to address the declining manufacturing sector or the rising cost of living, which are significant economic hurdles for the demographic he targeted. Instead, he blamed political opponents and cultural forces.

Blind Spots Regarding Social Policy

While Kirk preached the importance of traditional family roles and male leadership, the specific Republican social policies he supported could undermine the stability of working-class families.

  • Undermining the social safety net: Some Republican welfare reform proposals, including work requirements for welfare recipients, have been criticized for disproportionately harming low-income families and making it more difficult for men with fluctuating employment to access benefits.
  • The cost of basic needs: Republican tax cuts and deregulation have been criticized for increasing the cost of necessities, such as healthcare, potentially putting more strain on families and undercutting the very stability they were intended to promote.

Disconnecting Economic and Social Issues

Kirk’s rhetoric tended to compartmentalize economic and social problems, treating them as separate issues rather than interconnected ones.

  • The cost of traditional life: The high cost of housing, healthcare, and education—aggravated by many Republican economic policies—directly contradicts Kirk’s idealized vision of young men achieving traditional life milestones, such as home ownership and starting a family. By not acknowledging these connections, Kirk’s solutions appear disconnected from the real economic pain experienced by his target audience.
  • Ignoring data on marginalized groups: His focus on cultural grievances often obscured the disproportionate economic impact of specific policies on marginalized communities. For example, some analysts suggest Republican economic policies negatively affect Black households more significantly, a blind spot given Kirk’s focus on a predominantly white male audience.

Criticism of Reeves’ Diagnosis and Solutions

Many reviewers concede that Reeves brings together a substantial amount of data and that the phenomenon of male underperformance (on specific metrics) is indeed real. The question is not “is something wrong,” but “how much, why, and what to do.” So, criticisms are less about denying the basic facts and more about challenges in interpretation and in solution design.

  • Some critics argue that Reeves’s proposals may have unintended consequences or overlook trade-offs. For example, starting boys’ school a year later raises questions about the size of the potential advantage to boys. And there are concerns about its feasibility, cost, and the impact on girls, and how it interacts with existing policies. While it is clear that starting school later makes some sense for the cognitive maturation of boys, Katha Pollitt in The Nation (as Left as you can get) says it is a terrible idea because that means boys in middle and high school would be bigger, more sexually developed, and therefore a threat to girls.
  • Also, critics note that Reeves is relatively mute on promoting marriage or more traditional family structures compared to what some believe the data suggests would help. But as noted below (see Conclusion), Reeves was afraid of criticism from the feminist Left on that issue, the male sexual deficit, and inequality in the mating market.
  • Critics also question the political feasibility of some of the solutions and their long-term implications. For example, reforming custody systems, changing the school start age, training more male teachers, etc., are costly, difficult, and may be politically controversial.

Summary of Agreement and Disagreement

In short, Kirk and Reeves would find a superficial agreement on the symptoms of the problems facing men—that men are struggling in school, work, and family life. However, this is where the alignment ends.

  • Agreement:
    Men are struggling, and this struggle is observable in educational and economic data.
  • Disagreement:
    They hold opposing views on the fundamental reasons for the struggle and completely different philosophies for addressing it. Kirk views the problem as a cultural and spiritual battle against progressive ideology, while Reeves sees a need for pragmatic, evidence-based policy adjustments to outdated institutions. Kirk would likely dismiss Reeves’s solutions as “woke” or incremental, while Reeves would likely find Kirk’s cultural war rhetoric unhelpful and divisive.

Conclusion: Reflections on Mating Marketplace and “Biblical Model”

Neither Reeves nor Kirk directly addresses (like Scott Galloway) the problem of many young men finding partners for sex or marriage, especially as it relates to female preferences and behavior within a mating marketplace. That topic was, admittedly, too “hot” for Reeves, who was already in trouble with progressives.

Biblical Model Resonates with Evolutionary Adaptation

But the Kirk sentiment (quote above) about the biblical model* for men as “protector and leader” is congruent (in part) with aggregate studies in evolutionary psychology, mate selection science, human reproduction, and recent on-the-ground surveys of female mating preferences. While the need for male protection might be debated and resisted, male “leadership” and confidence are critical traits for a successful heterosexual partnership even in a “post-feminist” world.

I am a liberal, social progressive. Yet, Kirk’s assertion (in various videos and podcasts) that men’s well-being may be tied to a marriage (or a committed romantic relationship) that includes children and the experience of being a successful provider resonates as true.

This does not need to be an endorsement of traditional male-female roles. Or imply that the women involved are not also providing and being empowered. We do not need to couch it in a biblical context. This is just the evolutionary and intrapsychic wiring of heterosexual men.

“Deep Down”

When Kirk says, “deep down you agree” (see quote above), this call for male leadership (and the capacity to “protect-provide”) shows up as largely true among heterosexual women of child-bearing age in my experience and studies. “Deep down” means an “ultimate cause.”** Resisting this truth is mostly “undiscussable” on the political Left.

Traditional Marriage – “Nice Work If You Can Get It”

Kirk’s traditional (biblical model) marriage may be a great aspiration, but first, a man must be seen by women as marriageable – he must be chosen. Not being chosen is an epidemic among men. Sexual deprivation and lack of romance and intimacy are, for many men, a part of their alienation and sense of hopelessness. Neither Kirk nor Reeves would dispute that. We all suffer the repercussions of male alienation (especially from alienated men who own and are familiar with guns). Perhaps Kirk lost his life (in part) because of it.

*Obviously, and problematically, this model leaves gay, lesbian, and other queer folks in the wilderness to fend for themselves.

**Ultimate causes of human behavior and psychological processes are causes that were adaptive for survival (natural selection) or sexual selection for our ancestors, most of which occurred during the Pleistocene Epoch.

Addendum: Politicians Making Matters Worse: Failures of the Left and the Right

There is a political stalemate on issues of sex and gender in America. Both sides have entrenched themselves in an ideological position that hinders genuine change. Views on what it means to be a man in the twenty-first century have hardened along partisan lines. But as Richard Reeves writes in Of Boys and Men:

“We can hold two thoughts in our heads at once. We can be passionate about women’s rights and compassionate toward vulnerable boys and men.”

Politicians Are Making Matters Worse

Progressives refuse to accept that important gender inequalities can run in both directions. They dismiss legitimate concerns about boys and men and pathologize masculinity.

Conservatives appear more sensitive to the struggles of men and boys, but only as a justification for turning back the clock and restoring traditional gender roles. The populist Right weaponizes male dislocation and offers false promises.

Failure of the Left and the Right

“The failure of both Left and Right to respond to the growing problems of boys and men has created a dangerous vacuum in our political life. In the dynamics of culture-war politics, the more the Right moves to the extreme, the more the Left must move to the other side, and vice versa. The Left dismisses biology; the Right [perhaps] leans too heavily on it. The Left sees a war on girls and women; the Right [less ardently or clearly] sees a war on boys and men. The Left pathologizes masculinity; the Right pathologizes feminism.”

~ Richard Reeves

Please Note: Your comment may take up to 12 seconds to register and the confirmation message will appear above the “Submit a Comment” text. 
The Price of Love? The Movie ‘Materialists’ Keeps It Real

The Price of Love? The Movie ‘Materialists’ Keeps It Real

by | Jul 5, 2025 | Dating & Mating Economy, Relationship Issues, Uncategorized

I’m looking for a man in finance – trust fund, 6’5”, blue eyes.”
~ Man in Finance* – music by Billen Ted

 Sometimes a movie or TV show comes around that I must acknowledge and comment on.  Poor Things got my attention. And Barbie got everybody’s attention and two posts from me.

Now comes the Materialists by writer and director Celine Song — a follow-up to her Oscar-nominated Past Lives.

Materialists is an innovative, sophisticated exploration of modern romance and indispensable fodder for ruminating about the tensions and ambivalence in choosing a mate, roughly posed as a practical polarity: to marry for love or money? The story is modern, but the opening scene begins with a prehistoric “couple.” Song shows her cards early: courtship rituals and love are ancient; connection can be spiritual and nonmaterial.

Mating Preferences and Psychological Undertow

Song dips her toes into the waters of class and beauty privilege but not as deeply as the subject ultimately deserves. She does, however, take a daring plunge into the murky and muddy psychological undertow of male and female mating preferences.  In New York City (if not everywhere), some of these preferences are crystal clear. They elucidate economic and biological mandates — the components of assessed mate value in a fickle mate-selection marketplace.

Unvarnished Truth About Matchmaking and Mate Selection

Dakota Johnson as Lucy is a successful matchmaker in present-day New York City. That dating market is notoriously cruel and competitive. Lucy works with entitled upper-class folks.  The men want beautiful women; the women want successful men.  These are bedrock evolutionary directives. Lucy’s clients are picky, but Song’s script courageously (and correctly) displays the longer list of female requirements. The dialogue in this movie is some of the best writing ever.  Many uncomfortable truths (what I call “undiscussables”) are told about the exchange or “contract” between men and women in the mating marketplace.

Checking the Boxes in the “Contract”

Materialists tells the truth about the erotic-economic bargain and “checking the boxes” for the promise of this exchange.  Song shows the exhaustive list of boxes required by women, especially in the context of their self-referential beauty and expected economic entitlement.  It is about, as Lucy says, the “math” of relationships. This story is perennial in the canons of literature and history: marriage has often been an economic contract and business relationship between families of wealth.  (Currently illustrated with aplomb in the HBO show The Gilded Age.)

 Harry is a “Unicorn” and John Is Poor

Harry (Pedro Pascal) is a tall, wealthy, handsome financier– a “unicorn” in the lexicon of matchmaking. Lucy wants to find him a match.  Harry thinks Lucy IS his match. Lucy broke up with John (Chris Evans) because he was poor. Well, Harry isn’t poor. He puts on smooth full-court press for Lucy.

Courtship Math: Houses, Trips, and Food

Harry has a 11-million-dollar loft in Tribeca. Lucy loves the satin sheets.  John has a small, messy apartment with chaotic roommates. Harry offers Lucy a predictable early courtship gift – a trip to Iceland.  (This gives guys like Harry a longer “interview.”)  At the end of the movie, John gives Lucy a car trip upstate with the new money from his play.  John loves food trucks (who doesn’t) but Lucy loves the way Harry deftly and graciously picks up the bill at expensive restaurants. That confident “dance move” of providing turns her on.

Harry’s Speech at Dinner

Song’s message about love and money resonates with pivotal scenes and dialogue.

Harry’s speech at dinner with Lucy is a critical piece of messaging from Song.  Harry makes it clear; he could not care less about Lucy’s status in the job world or the money she makes; he does not need money from her.  Nor, is it solely because of her beauty that he is interested in Lucy. (Even though it was evident that her beauty was the only reason that Harry wanted to get to know her.  Lucy’s beauty absolutely opened that door).

 “Intangibles”

Harry recognizes Lucy’s wisdom, her insights, and her clarity about how the world works.  She is street smart like he is.  It is her “intangibles” that make her special, Harry asserts. Harry’s perceptions are on target and raise his stature as a sensitive and mature person.  He is not a vapid, boring rich guy. He delivers this communication to Lucy with confident power.   Song wants us to appreciate the nuance in attraction and mate selection. Listen up, she says: not all rich guys are superficial, and there are “intangibles” in this biochemical soup.

“You Make Me Feel Valuable”

Then the conversation at dinner gets even better.  “What do you like about me?” Harry asks. “You make me feel valuable,” Lucy replies — another key insight about relationships from Song. Women want to be seen and feel valued for who they are on the inside.

“You Are Not a Fish”

Lucy is cynical about her job. She detests her clients as “children” in one breath but cares about them the next.  When one of her female clients gives Lucy a long list of requirements she wants in a man, the client adds, “I am a real catch.”  This is a pregnant moment for Lucy and the movie audience. Will Lucy tell this woman the truth about her overblown mate value?  Lucy says, “No, you are not a catch, because you are not a fish.”

Fudging the Truth of “Hot or Not?”

The fish line (excuse the pun) is Lucy’s first and best lie in the movie. She retains her professional composure. She cannot tell this woman the truth about her diminished mate value and misplaced entitlement. This client is not a catch because she is overbearing; her beauty is average at best. I wanted Lucy to say that, but Song is aware of how tricky the truth is in matters of personal perception of mate value. Who among us wants to look into a mirror and grapple with the question: “Am I hot, or not?”

“Love Must Be Present”

Lucy is cynical and romantic about relationships and marriage. This duality can’t be helped; in Materialists, that’s the point.

Lucy tells Harry, in a matter-of-fact tone (no hesitancy or bullshit), that she is not in love with him and asserts that he does not love her (which he does not refute).  Harry is not sure he knows how to love. Lucy says, “Love must be present.”  This is another pivotal piece of dialogue about the tradeoff dilemma we are trying to resolve.  Lucy is, at that moment, a romantic.

The Privilege and Problem of Height Bias

Most of Lucy’s female clients want a man who is at least six feet tall.  The percentage of men in the U.S. who are six feet or taller is 14.5%.  Here, Song is really in alignment with the hard facts of female preference for a mate. Harry gives Lucy a profound lesson on height privilege for men and what it is like for a man to be short.  He freely discloses about his leg lengthening surgeries (apparently, a real thing). Harry knows he would not have had the confidence to approach Lucy at 5’6”.  He would not have made as much money or been treated with as much respect if he were short.  Lucy softens and probably cares most about Harry in that moment.  They feel closer.  When they part, she tells him he is “perfect.”  But is she being truthful?  Or just compassionate?

Love or Money?

Materialists confronts the enduring question: “Should one marry for love or money?” Song deftly and correctly illustrates that both preferences are inside of a woman, or at least inside of Lucy, even when she at times denies it.  But in the “war on the ground” of mate selection, a man’s status, resources, and stature will usually win the “first battle” of courtship.  Initially, character is often secondary.   Feelings of sexual chemistry and love are frequently fused together and even rationalized after the fact. Yet, the tradeoff dilemmas of love versus money and money versus character simmer underneath for many women, always nagging.

“I Want Someone Who Cannot Help But Love Me”

When Lucy and John go to save Sophie (a client who suffered date assault) near the end of the movie, Sophie gives the transformational final statement of the movie.  She says, “I want someone who cannot help but love me.”   (That line resonated with me.) This is a lightbulb moment for Lucy. A few minutes later, John essentially tells Lucy that he does love her exactly that way. No matter what, he cannot help but love her.

John Will Strive Harder to Be Good Enough

John says he will strive harder to be good enough for her. He emphasizes his ambition for his career and the desire for increased financial stability. Lucy leans into her romantic side and the chemistry she feels for him.

The Tradeoff Question is Left Unresolved – That is Real

Ultimately, Lucy seemingly chooses love over cynicism and her need for a secure, upper-class lifestyle. But she never really disavows the need for financial security. Will her love for John sustain her?

Polarity to Manage, Not Resolve

Song wants us to know that the central tradeoff preference for women —intimacy, risk, and passion vs. financial security —is a polarity to manage, not resolve; she keeps it real. (Is this trade-off often necessary?  Topic for another day.)

Meaning In Non-Material Things

Materialists clearly embraces the struggle to seek meaning in non-material things.  As John and Lucy embark on their next chapter, John presents Lucy with a flower ring, just like the caveman did in the opening scene.

The Postscript: “A Good Match”

The movie ends with the message that love can win the day … for now. But as a final follow-up to the Sophie plot line, we learn that she finds a match.  Is it someone who cannot help but love her?  Perhaps, but Lucy does the math: Sophie’s new beau is a dentist who clears $ 200,000 a year after taxes.  “A good match,” Lucy says.

*Looking for a man in finance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUzgVapnc3U

Addendum – AI-Chat GPT Offers Insights

Prompt:

“Give an analysis of the movie Materialists in addressing the conflict between financial security and love in choosing a mate.  Does Celine Song give us answers and direction?”

Chat GPT had a lot to say, but most importantly:

“Song’s brilliance lies in reframing the love vs. money dilemma not as a question of “right or wrong,” but of what one is willing to trade off:”

  • Choosing love may mean choosing risk, instability, and dependence on emotional reciprocity.
  • Choosing money may mean sacrificing mystery, passion, or the freedom of not being beholden.

Celine Song’s Materialists is less a guidepost and more a meditation on the paradoxes of modern love. She does not give answers, but she sharpens the question. Her signature touch is a blend of moral ambiguity and emotional realism.

Song dignifies the dilemma of modern love, offering a rare empathy to those navigating love in the shadow of economics. Rather than condemning or romanticizing, she portrays the modern mate market with clear eyes and a full heart.

Chat GPT offered a bar chart of tradeoffs comparing the perceived benefit of love vs. money across the following six dimensions:

1. emotional fulfillment  – love wins by a large margin

2. sexual chemistry – love wins by a significant margin

3. stability and security – money wins by the second-largest margin on the chart

4. autonomy and growth – love wins by a small margin

5. social status – money wins by a large margin

6. future risk, a negative – love brings greater risk by the largest margin on the chart

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