The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

The Dangerous Truth

Posted on | March 3, 2012 | 11 Comments

Science keeps proving what I’ve been saying for years: Men and women are different. People with common sense may wonder why we need science to tell us this, but feminism — an ideology which attempts to impose a regime of pseudo-androgyny — must be disproven, and therein lies the importance of science:

According to this hypothesis, domestic violence varies with women’s reproductive value or expected future reproduction, declining steeply as women age.” That hypothesis was tested against data taken from nearly 4,000 New York City domestic-abuse cases, and the view was largely borne out: Domestic violence is strongly correlated with women’s age, which is a proxy for fertility.
Fertility and violence interact in complicated ways: Men are more likely to be violent toward fertile women, and fertile women select men who are more likely to be violent. A study of women’s sexual preferences conducted at St. Andrew’s University (and since replicated) found that in most cases women preferred photos of men whose faces had been digitally altered to make them more feminine – but during ovulation, they reversed their preferences and chose photos of men whose faces had been digitally altered to make them more masculine: “A growing literature has shown that women in the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle demonstrate stronger preferences for men with masculine traits than they do when in the non-fertile phases of the cycle,” the study says. It is well established that high levels of testosterone in men are associated with a number of personality traits: aggression, assertiveness, territoriality — and violence.

(Hat-tip: Instapundit.) Studies like this merely demonstrate a general tendency and there is, of course, wide variation among individuals in the extent to which the demonstrable tendency is exhibited. Some women may have no such tendency at all.

Nevertheless, in general — that is to say, when speaking of women as a group, as a category — we see evidence of a personality trait that quite likely represents a hard-wired biological difference, uniquely related to women’s role in the reproductive process.

Kevin Williamson examines this “Chicks Dig Jerks” factor in a very narrow context, namely situations like the Chris Brown-Rhianna domestic-violence case. But I would beg you to consider the possibility that this scientific tidbit has wide applicability, because if we accept as demonstrably true that women (in general) have personality traits that are biologically hard-wired, making them different from men in important ways — well, this is one of those Ideas Have Consequences moments.

How do these differences impact the workplace, where the law requires that men and women be treated equally — as though they are the same — even though they are demonstrably different? Williamson touches upon an obvious consequence of this idea:

[E]ven in the 21st century, testosterone levels correlate with status in organizations such as the U.S. Army. (But not in the U.S. job force: High levels of testosterone correlate negatively with career success in the United States. Corporate America really is full of girly-men. But you knew that.)

Bingo, Kev: The “gender-neutral” workplace disadvantages masculinity, as does our education system. The legal regime of “equal opportunity” actually has highly unequal effects, one of which is the declining career prospects for young men and (an inevitable correlation) the declining marital prospects for young women.

If women prefer more masculine men — as science would seem to indicate — and if such men are disadvantaged in terms of education and employment, then the men who are most desireable as mates increasingly lack the kind of economic wherewithal to fulfill the breadwinner role of husband and father.

Many young women complain that they find themselves working in offices surrounded by “girly-men” and are perplexed by the apparent shortage of marriageable men. Meanwhile, the lower rungs of the socio-economic scale are increasingly crowded by unmarried mothers and fatherless children. And amid all this misery, we are not permitted to wonder aloud whether these problems are side-effects of a regime of “equality” which in fact has drastically unequal consequences.

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • http://adriennescatholiccorner.blogspot.com/ Adrienne

    I think that’s the reason Mad Men is so popular.  I’ve only watched about one hour of the show, but it shows what the business atmosphere was like before the advent of the girly-man. 

    I can attest from experience that it was way more fun back then…

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_7E7OB7BMLOMJ6VHFDA7GITJXQY DaveO

    Why should a man marry, and face thorough destruction at the hands of a Family Law judge, when he can get sex for the price of dinner and drinks? Or $20, with the promise of no drama? If he makes enough money to pay taxes, he’s paying child support whether he’s a biological father or not. And if he doesn’t pay taxes, then someone else foots his fooling around.

    Each day, in each way, American women suffer from a growing case of sour grapes at the freedoms they have wrought.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/EU5DQWQTTHTPO4A4ZYSL3AAV2U Adjoran

    Um, pardon me, but psychology is basically BS, and I don’t mean Bachelor of Science.  The pseudo-scientist behind this pseudoscience is leaving the University of South Alabama for that other noted hall of academic excellence, the University of Western Sydney.   But let Assistant Professor Peter K. Jonason, Ph.D. (piled high and deep?) speak for his’elf:

    I am a social-personality psychologist who uses evolutionary psychology, comparative psychology, microeconomics, and behavioral ecology to understand mating psychology and personality. The majority of my research today focuses on the personality traits called the Dark Triad (i.e., narcissism, psychopathy, & Machiavellianism). I am interested in how these traits are measured, outcomes of these traits, but, more importantly, what do they measure in a latent fashion. In addition, I have continually been interested not in documenting global sex differences in mating psychology or documenting the varied ways in which men and women get what they want in terms of their mating goals but, instead, in understanding the specifics of individual tactics like relationship-type choice, mate-searching strategies, and how men and women influence the market-forces surrounding individuals. Essentially I am interested in the manner in which evolutionary constraints could have shaped decision-making processes across and between the sexes.

    Yes, apparently you can make money producing such tripe – and I bet his garden flourishes as a side benefit.

  • http://www.leftbankofthecharles.com/ Charles

    What you are saying is that the masculine man is only needed once a month. The girly men can fake that by not shaving or digitally altering their photos. And the manly men should fake being girly in the workplace, as that pays better.

  • Pathfinder’s wife

    Uh, how about men remember that masculinity means more than being some hyper-aggressive, hyper-dominant ape and girly man can also apply to overly self-obsessed sports jocks who grow into white collar “successes”?
    How about women grow up and decide that the things such spiritual wastrels of men would ever value in a woman will make her no more than a prize heifer, a bitch in heat?  But unfortunately we now have women who idolize these visions of themselves (and those who don’t are cast aside).There used to be a time when men understood the value of and inherent manliness of being stalwart members of society (no matter what their paycheck was or their job) and good heads of households.  And there was a time when women appreciated that.The women I’ve had to suffer in the work place are the most backstabbing, gossipy things; the men are just as bad if not worse — I think sometimes I’ve landed in an old hen party — and they are the most successful because they will backstab, gossip, kiss butt, and basically act like their feminine counterparts in the mean girls’ clique to get ahead.They are the new “alpha” couple; the “beautiful people”…and don’t bet on them being up to serving, protecting, or defending anything (and they come in every ideological stripe, so they’d be hard to root out, in fact they now run things).  Of course they will divorce, of course they will walk out on their kids, and of course they look at society with the attitude of “what’s in in for me?”.  And yes, some of them are also vicious sociopaths who will hurt other people: physically, emotionally, sexually…because they feel entitled to their feelings…And this of course leaves men and women, who still try and maintain somewhat of the values of years past, out of the loop, as like attracts like, and such men and women are no longer “necessary”. 

  • Pingback: Sorry, But Some Really Are More Equal Than Others | Daily Pundit

  • Pathfinder’s wife

    I would also like to add: our society has trivialized and misinterpreted the role of male aggression and dominance in a very unhealthy fashion, and it has led to this.

    Male aggression has good biological reason to exist (men had to have a certain amount of “umphf” to face down some of the dangers that faced their families and tribes; men who couldn’t were a danger to themselves and the rest of the group), and we are not that far removed on the evolutionary timeline from our primordial ancestors.  It is also worth noting that probably like other animals, certain genetic traits also ride piggyback on others — perhaps male aggression is linked to male paternal feeling???  In short, the truly masculine, dominant men were also the ones more capable of not only maintaining family units, but also the ones most likely to seek them out?

    I’ve certainly noticed this in my purely unscientific observations of canids and equids, both wild and domestic — the really dominant, alpha males were capable of murderous violence and aggression.  They were also very devoted and patient with their family units, and even playful and gentle with their offspring.  They seem to actively seek out family units, put much energy into maintaining them, and when those are lost it had a negative effect on them.  And, they didn’t resort to violence very often at all, sort of a last resort option — but when they did, it was pretty savage.
    Heh, in short they were the penultimate “family men”.

    And what have we done in regards to even understanding the nature of male aggression and the male role?

    If dumb animals can figure out the right masculine role, why the heck have humans screwed it up so badly?

  • Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » The Dangerous Truth

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    A balance has been upset by Feminism and the promotion of Egalitarianism.  Men are aggressive and protective – this is part of their nature.  Women are there to calm and control male aggression.  They are the civilizing influence.  But Feminism throws the balance off-kilter.  It seeks to smother the masculine, which leads to Society becoming depraved.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    The OED defines ‘slut’ as: a woman who has many casual sexual partners.

    It defines ‘whore’ as: a prostitute. a promiscuous woman.

    Mzzz. Fluke fits both definitions.

  • Pathfinder’s wife

    True about the men, but I’m not so sure about the women (and neither is perhaps R. Kipling). Women can be very fierce; it’s just a different form and focus of aggression.  It’s just as sad to see the “defanging” that society has done to women as it is to witness the “gelding” of men.

    In fact, I might wager that the steps towards totalitarian dystopia started with the defanging of the women by convincing them that they were supposed to be calm little cupcakes as a way to “civilize” men.  From there at has been easy to emasculate men — hand that rocks the cradle and all that.