Book Review: ‘Testosterone: The Story of the Hormone that Dominates and Divides Us’ by Carole Hooven (Part 1)

(4/5 stars)

Overview: An informative exploration of the role testosterone plays in sex differences and biology. The book is strongest when it is centred on the science and weakest when Carole Hooven expresses her personal and political views. Fortunately, the former makes up most of this book.

Testosterone is the third and final book of an unintended trilogy I’ve read recently which could be called ‘The Science of Sex Differences’. The other two books in this ‘trilogy’ are the ones I’ve reviewed on this blog: Bad Men by David Buss and The Ape That Understood the Universe by Steve Stewart-Williams.

Like Bad Men, I wasn’t planning on reading and reviewing Testosterone but I was interested after seeing it mentioned in discussions on sex differences on Twitter. Steve Stewart-Williams also praised the book and, since I mostly enjoyed his own work, I thought Testosterone was worth looking into.

Carole Hooven is a lecturer in the Department of Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University which is also where she studied her PhD in sex differences and testosterone.

Chapter 1: The Controversy Surrounding Testosterone

In 1999, Carole Hooven spent 8 months studying chimpanzees in the Kibale forest in Uganda after applying for a program run by primatologist Richard Wrangham, whose work fascinated her. In January of that year, she witnessed an incident that would become the subject of an article in Time magazine a few years later. A male chimp, named “Imoso”, who was the “mayor” of a “town” called Kanyawara, attacked a female named “Outamba” with a large stick. Carole Hooven told Richard Wrangham what had happened and was told that she was the first researcher to observe a wild animal using a tool as a weapon against its own species. The stick was later recovered by field assistants and Dr. Hooven saw it again in 2002 as explored in the Time article ‘The Wife Beaters of Kibale.’ I managed to find the actual article which can be seen below and you can read the article here.

Dr. Hooven noted the contrasting behaviour between the male and female chimps: the female chimps were relatively peaceful whereas the male chimps were more aggressive and obsessed with hierarchy. While male chimps are not violent all of the time, they will use violence for several purposes, such as to show dominance, fight over a sexual opportunity or to make a female more sexually compliant in future. This last example may have been the reason that Imoso attacked Outamba.

From this and other experiences, the author “longed the understand men” and began work on her PhD on testosterone.

According to Dr. Hooven:

“Testosterone is present in our blood in minute quantities. Both sexes produce it but men have ten to twenty times as much as women.”

Testosterone in an androgen hormone, with ‘andro’ meaning “man” and ‘gen’ meaning “generating.” Possibly to avoid the writing becoming cumbersome, the book commonly refers to testosterone as “T” which I will do as well. Although both sexes have T, we commonly associate it with men than we do with women. Dr. Hooven notes:

“If the Y chromosome is the essence of maleness, then T is the essence of masculinity, at least in the popular mind.”

The association with T and masculinity is reflected in political debates, such as the contrasting perceptions towards Donald Trump. Commentators on the political Left believed Trump had too much T whereas those on the political Right thought that mainstream conservatives who opposed Trump had the opposite problem:

“According to the left-wing Huffington Post, Trump’s presidency is “testosterone-fueled”, making it “an extremely dangerous one” that could lead to war. According to the right-wing American Spectator, the problem is not too much T, but too little, among some prominent conservatives.”

It’s interesting that Joe Biden’s left-wing and presumably less “testosterone-fueled” presidency has coincided with the disastrous withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and Russia invading Ukraine, both of which make the world a more dangerous place.

From a biological perspective, the role of T is thought to help increase male’s reproductive output by affecting anatomy, physiology, behaviour and energy which is directed towards competing for mates. T also plays an important role in aggression, which can be seen in the difference in violence and crime rates between men and women. The author writes that men are:

“responsible for around 70 percent of all traffic fatalities and 98 percent of mass shootings in the United States, and worldwide commit over 95 percent of homicides and the overwhelming majority of violent acts of every kind, including sexual assault.”

Like I wrote in my review of The Ape That Understood the Universe, which also describes this difference between the sexes, I believe women’s relationship with crime and violence is more complicated than we like to think, but I’ll go into more detail about this later on in this review.

As the reader is no doubt aware, talking about sex differences and the effects of T can be controversial. Some academics and researchers have expressed scepticism towards some of the findings about T. For example, Rebecca Jordan-Young, a ‘gender studies’ scholar, and Katrina Karkazis, an anthropologist, wrote a book called Testosterone: An Unauthorized Biography, in which they attempt to debunk, in their minds, some of the claims made about T.

Carole Hooven also describes another controversial idea that is debated in academia, the evolution of sexual behaviours like rape. Randy Thornhill put forward a theory suggesting that males across many species will rape females if they are unable to provide resources and may be one reason why males tend to be larger than females in humans. Dr. Thornhill and his theory will be familiar to anyone who has read Part 3 of my review of David Buss’ book Bad Men. Dr. Hooven admits to being “triggered” when she first heard about Randy Thornhill’s theory as an undergraduate. At the time, she called him an “asshole” but was told by her professor to respond to the data and argument without getting emotional:

“It wasn’t an easy process. My emotions didn’t evaporate. And I’m still not thrilled with what strikes me as tone-deaf writing about a sensitive topic. But I learned that I could evaluate the evidence for an upsetting hypothesis on its merits; that by itself was empowering.”

This quote illustrates that Carole Hooven is an academic who believes in objective truth and knows what they are supposed to do when debating controversial ideas: to try and look at the facts without emotions and personal feelings from interfering too much. She did, in fact, later meet Randy Thornhill and said he seemed like a nice guy.

Dr. Hooven has incorporated into her course other individuals who have had caused controversy from talking about sex differences. In 2006, Lawrence Summers ended up resigning from his position as President of Harvard following a speech he gave where he suggested that women’s underrepresentation in science courses was partly due to “intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude” between the sexes. A decade later, James Damore lost his job at Google for suggesting that sex differences in preferences are one explanation for the lack of gender parity at the company and their aim to achieve parity was “misguided.” During both of these controversies, Dr. Hooven realised she was “on the wrong side of the divide” for embracing the scientific information behind both men’s claims.

Here Carole Hooven also explores the “feminist backlash” towards claims of sex differences and expresses some sympathy towards this sentiment:

“the fact is that women have good reason to be suspicious of “biological” explanations of sex differences. Scientists and philosophers – mostly men – have a history of confidently expounding on the alleged biological basis of women’s inferiority.”

While I admire Dr. Hooven’s commitment to objective truth and scientific inquiry, this quote seems, to me, to be an example of ‘feminist thinking’ affecting the author’s viewpoint. Why should we assume that whatever male scientists and philosophers wrote about women in the past was simply chauvinism and ignorance? We can certainly debate about particular claims men may have historically made about women, but it is important to understand the context behind those claims as well.

Similarly, the book presents Charles Darwin’s claim about “man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman – whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.” This can obviously sound offensive to our modern sensibilities, but the observation is accurate in the sense that men are more likely than women to be over-represented in exceptional achievements and endeavours. Of course, it can also be said that men are over-represented in many unfavourable ways as well.

In response to Darwin’s claim, Dr. Hooven writes:

“From our more enlightened perspective, we can create an obvious alternative hypothesis: women are simply being held back by constraints imposed primarily by society rather than by their naturally inferior mental capacity.”

Carole Hooven could be accused here of doing the same thing as those who opposed Lawrence Summers and James Damore: rejecting a claim about sex differences on the basis that she personally dislikes and disagrees with it. I suppose I could be accused of doing this as well if you’ve read any of my previous posts where I have disagreed with an apparent sex difference. However, I try to acknowledge any bias on my part and explain what I disagree with and why. I don’t always share the author’s opinion on certain sex differences in this book either, which will come up later on in this review. The “more enlightened perspective” line is similar to people who claim to be “on the right side of history” or argue that certain words or ideas are unwelcome because “it’s [the current year].” Why should we assume that what we think is superior to what people thought in the past or assume that people in the future will agree with us?

Feminist opposition towards sex differences and how hormones like T may influence those differences is motivated in part by fears that these facts will be used to “uphold patriarchy.” Books such as Testosterone Rex by Cordelia Fine and The Gendered Brain by Gina Rippon which challenge findings about sex differences are motivated by this fear. Carole Hooven makes a good point here:

“In general, if you find a hypothesis distasteful, a red flag should immediately go up: there is a clear and present danger that you will discount the evidence that supports the hypothesis.”

Like David Buss in Bad Men, Carole Hooven believes that understanding the science behind behaviour, such as the effects of T, can help us to deal with the “darker parts” of human nature.

Chapter 2: A History of T: Experiments, Cultural Practices and Discovery

The second chapter in this book is my favourite as it covers two subjects I particularly like: history and biology. Specifically, this chapter explains how the effects of T were known for millennia before its discovery and isolation in the 20th Century. This was because humans could separate the primary source of T from the body of a male human or animal without killing them and then observe the changes that followed from this. To put it bluntly, cutting off the testicles rids the body of its main supply of T. Although humans weren’t aware of the hormone, or even the idea of hormones in general, they knew that performing this procedure had dramatic effects.

Aristotle, for example, observed that castrated male birds “cease to crow” and “forego sexual passion” following the procedure and birds castrated when young never develop these behaviours. Boys who were castrated before puberty never grew facial hair or experienced voice changes and male pattern baldness in adulthood. “What would be the point in castrating boys and men, other than as a cruel experiment?”, you may well ask. It was often done to punish enemies, rapists or prevent the mentally unfit from having children.

“Eunuchs” or castrated servants were often used to guard harems of women in civilisations such as Ancient Greece and Rome. In Imperial China, eunuchs not only guarded harems but also performed government operations and so could wield political power. Their position meant that they could be a source of gossip and advice. Eunuchs in this position seem similar to the character Varys in the Game of Thrones TV series and A Song of Ice and Fire books. Some men willingly became eunuchs despite the obvious disadvantages as it meant they could have comfort and possibly power although many were made eunuchs by force.

What follows is a description of how the Ancient Chinese performed the castration procedure which I’ll be generous and not relay to you here. As the reader might imagine, it was not pleasant and could result in agonising death. I never realised until reading this that the penis was also removed (see what I mean?) during the operation.

Whilst people could observe what happened when testicles were removed from males, advances in science led to people attempting to work out why doing this had such transformative effects. They likely knew that something in the testes was transmitted to the rest of the body, and that removing testes cut off this supply, but they did not know what the thing was, or whether it was transmitted through the nerves or the bloodstream. Like with many other scientific discoveries, it would take a series of independent experiments before scientists could determine that T works through blood rather than nerves.

In the 19th Century, Arnold Berthold performed an experiment in which he castrated some cockerels then reattached the testicles in the cockerels’ abdomens. In two of them, Berthold attached a testis from one bird into the other or a “foreign” testicle to observe any differences. He discovered that “masculinization” returned to the castrated cockerels upon reattachment then found after killing them and cutting them open that the testes had vascular connections to the colon. From this he concluded that whatever was in the testes acted via the bloodstream.

A little later, Charles Edouard Brown-Sequard theorised that diseases were caused by insufficient tissue secretions and injecting organisms with tissue extracts could treat various diseases. He pursued his theory by injecting himself with “crushed testicle extracts” of various animals and reported that he developed “mental clarity”, increased focus, strength, handgrip and stamina. Many other men repeated the procedure which became known as the “Brown-Sequard Elixir.” It is now thought that the effects were simply a placebo but it influenced further studies and contributed to the discovery of hormones.

This discovery emerged at the beginning of the 20th Century from the work of Ernest Starling and William Bayliss who operated on a dog to study its digestive system. Sodium bicarbonate is secreted from the pancreas during digestion to neutralise acids in the stomach and small intestine. The secretion is triggered by a hormone and the two men observed the secretion occurring in the blood. This led to the first isolation of a hormone, which they named secretin. Further research led to the discovery of more hormones such as oestrogen (of which there are three kinds) and testosterone a couple of decades later.

Here are some other interesting facts from this chapter:

  • In some animals, testicles remain inside the body like ovaries in females. This is the case for elephants, seals, whales, dolphins and frogs. Testicles are on the outside of the body in humans and other animals like dogs to keep sperm at a temperature ideal for sperm production which is lower than body temperature. It is not known why some male animals have internal testicles and some do not.
  • Castrated men can be tall and gangly despite lacking T. This is because T increases bone growth but also stops it. The growth spurt that may occur in such men is a product of “extended childhood growth.” Other effects of castration on males includes having smoother skin, increased fat and being physically weaker. Castrated cockerels or capons are created for this effect as they will have larger and more tender meat.
  • Ernest Starling coined the name for hormones – from the Greek ‘ormao’ – meaning to excite or arouse.
  • Testosterone is a steroid hormone, which are made from cholesterol. The receptors for T are inside the cell. Attaching to receptors allows T to influence physical and behavioural changes mainly relating to reproduction.

Chapter 3: The Effect of T on Developing Boys and Girls

In this chapter, Carole Hooven writes about a student of hers who has a difference of sex development (DSD) condition called “complete androgen insensitivity syndrome” (CAIS). The student, named Jenny (possibly a pseudonym to protect her identity) has XY chromosomes, T and has testicles instead of ovaries but appears, in the author’s words, “ultrafeminine.” How can this be?

Jenny has testicles but they are inside the abdomen where the ovaries would normally be. In addition, Jenny has female genitalia but no connection to the uterus. Throughout her life, she has had female primary and secondary sex characteristics. Jenny could thus be designated as “intersex” which in distinct from “transgender” which is explored in Chapter 9 of the book. Carole Hooven worked with Jenny as part of an independent study of her condition.

The reader may have worked out from the name of Jenny’s condition that her physical traits are a result of her body not being able to respond to the testosterone it was producing. Jenny’s case is useful to understand how boys and girls develop and differentiate when they are growing in the womb.

Carole Hooven explains how this happens using the analogy of baking cookies and hand-drawn diagrams such as below:

I do a little bit of drawing myself (observe the artistic masterpiece that is my Mystery Man logo!) so I thought these drawings were a nice touch and make the book stand out from other ones which may use standard diagrams and charts. Graphs shown in the book are also presented as drawings which I thought was a clever idea. Below is a graph from Chapter 1 showing differences in height between men and women:

If Carole Hooven had done the drawings herself (spoiler: she didn’t) I would have been tempted to give her book an even higher rating.

Like with baking cookies (or any food), humans require a certain set of ‘ingredients’ and ‘instructions’ in order to be healthily produced. Sex hormones stimulate the sex-specific traits we observe in men and women rather than sex chromosomes:

“Both sexes come genetically equipped to express all the traits typical of either sex. It’s just a matter of which genes are active, at which levels, in which bodies.”

Until week six of foetal development, boys and girls both possess “primordial” or “bipotential” gonads which then differentiate to become male or female. A protein called SRY, meaning “sex determining region of the Y chromosome” in males increases the transcription of certain genes on other chromosomes. If the reader is uninitiated in how gene transcription works, basically, DNA is unravelled and certain genes are ‘transcribed’ to make proteins:

SRY protein upregulates the production of another protein called SOX9 which helps turn the primordial gonad into testicular cells. Low levels of SRY and SOX9 will result in the development of ovaries instead of testicles even if the baby has XY chromosomes:

“XX and XY chromosomes are traits that are features of sex (in mammals), not ones that define sex.”

Here Dr. Hooven presents a hypothetical twin brother for Jenny she calls “James” to contrast how boys and girls develop differently during pregnancy and why Jenny possesses both male and female traits. In addition to the development of testes or ovaries from shared primordial gonads, both sexes have primordial duct systems that also diverge at around week eight. There are initially two sets of these ducts but, depending on the sex of the foetus, one set will degenerate and the other set will continue to develop. Boys will develop “Wolffian ducts” whilst girls will develop “Mullerian ducts” This diagram from the book may make this clearer:

The testes release Mullerian inhibiting hormone which causes the Mullerian ducts to degenerate which is what happened to Jenny. It is here that T also plays a role: the Wolffian ducts are stimulated to eventually form male genitalia. In the absence of T, the Wolffian ducts will degenerate:

“The female duct system is the default: it will develop without any specific hormonal stimulation, unlike the male duct system.”

Unlike her “brother” James, T had no effect on developing Jenny’s Wolffian ducts leaving her with neither set of duct. This explains why Jenny has testes instead of ovaries, as she has the SRY gene, but also female genitals, as her body does not respond to T to create male genitals.

Jenny’s lack of response to T is due to having a mutation on an androgen receptor meaning that T cannot bind to it. In normal circumstances, T binds to an androgen receptor and then both move into the cell nucleus to increase transcription of certain genes. Since T cannot bind to a receptor in Jenny’s body, it cannot upregulate other proteins that will create male characteristics. As a result, Jenny developed female traits instead of male ones:

“Making a female, in many ways, is easier than making a male – the external structures develop in the female direction in the absence of any hormonal signal.”

Jenny being, according to Dr. Hooven, very feminine is not just the result of ineffectiveness of T on her body. Oestrogen, in many ways the female equivalent of T, is actually produced from it:

“in everyone, all estrogen comes from testosterone (or other androgens). In other words, testosterone is an estrogen precursor.”

[Carole Hooven, being American, uses the US spelling ‘estrogen’.]

Therefore, Jenny has had the effects of oestrogen produced from T.

The chapter ends by briefly talking about differences in behaviour in boys and girls, referring to the famous nursery rhyme:

“What are little boys made of? Snips, snails and puppy-dog’s tails…What are little girls made of? Sugar and spice and all things nice.”

Carole Hooven writes about her young son Griffin, whom she dedicated the book to, to highlight typical boy behaviour – fantacising about destruction of planets, battles, rough-and-tumble play, etc. As mentioned in the first chapter, some feminists take issue with assumptions about typical boy and girl behaviour and there are a number of feminists who present counter-arguments that distinctive behaviour between the sexes is a result of culture rather than biology.

There is an experiment, for example, in which baby boys and girls were dressed to look like the opposite sex and presented to test subjects this way. The subjects said that the boys who they thought were girls showed behaviour that was typical of girls (and vice versa for girls dressed as boys) reflecting that attitudes can be reinforced by how children are presented to us. I once watched a documentary that also presented this experiment. However, it’s important to note that it’s harder to tell if babies are boys or girls, other than the obvious checks, than it would be if this experiment was performed with toddlers or older children. Baby behaviour is also fairly consistent between the sexes although there are still some differences.

The author contrasts her son’s play with what is typical of most girls:

“What kind of fantasy play do girls tend to act out? Those that involve relationships, romance, and domestic concerns, like getting married, parenting, going shopping, or taking care of household responsibilities. Much of girl’s play, in contrast to that of boys, omits the blowing up of planets but instead focuses on coming together and finding safety after being under threat.”

Although girl’s play may not include conflict of the planet-blowing-up variety, I would point out that relationships, romance and domestic concerns are not free of conflict themselves. Consider the popularity of soap operas and gossip magazines, which involve lying, cheating partners, abuse, and murder often to a degree that would be extreme in real life. These genres have a predominantly female audience than a male one, albeit women instead of girls. There’s a clip from the comedy show Taskmaster whereby the comedians have to create their own soap cliffhanger. The female comedians come up with this scene which wouldn’t look out of place on a soap like Eastenders.

Boys and girls’ toy preferences are also different as boys tend to like toys relating to transportation or weapons whereas girls tend to like toys such as dolls and tea sets. The author points out that boys who have been banned from playing with toy weapons for fears it will influence dangerous behaviour often use other toys as weapons instead:

“Boys, it seems, are resistant to efforts to condition them away from battle and weaponry.”

I would also argue that this assumption that boys playing with toy guns or other weapons may cause them to be violent is a little shallow. Does girl’s play make them entirely caring and non-violent? I often think feminists make more stereotypical assumptions about sex differences than other people do.

Chapter 4: The Effect of T on Male and Female Behaviour

A second DSD condition is described in this chapter using another case study. An Indonesian girl called “Taman” started to develop a penis at puberty as well as other male traits like a drop in voice. Taman, like Jenny in Chapter 3, was biologically male, or at least intersex, but had the physical features of a girl. Unlike Jenny, Taman’s androgen receptors work. The problem was also not with T, but another androgen, dihydrotestosterone or DHT. This is produced from T by the enzyme 5-alpha reductase. DHT provides extra stimulation in the development of the penis and scrotum.

5-alpha reductase didn’t work in Taman’s body, a condition known as 5-alpha reductase deficiency (5-ARD), so T was not converted into DHT. As a result, Taman’s penis did not develop properly until puberty when an increase in T was sufficient to do it.

Interestingly, although Taman was thought to be a girl until puberty, she (or he) was always a “tomboy” or a girl who displays behaviour more typical of boys. Carole Hooven argues that T had had an effect on Taman’s brain but not on Taman’s body, indicating that differences in boys and girls’ brains start in the womb therefore nobody is a ‘blank slate’.

Men with 5-ARD have been found worldwide, and often in remote areas where inbreeding and lack of medical intervention is common. In the 1970s, the endocrinologist Julianne Imperato-McGinley studied a group of 5-ARD-affected children in the Dominican Republic. Like Taman, some of the children thought to be girls seemed to turn into boys at puberty. Such children were given the name “guevedoces”, literally “eggs at twelve”, referring to the development of male genitalia. Following puberty, most “guevedoces” identify as men which is likely because they felt more like boys than girls during childhood. Countries like Indonesia and the Dominican Republic have more traditional expectations of men and women so it can be difficult for such people as Taman or the guevedoces to fit in although they may be recognised as a “third sex.”

These cases, along with Jenny in the previous chapter, show that there is a complexity to male and female identity as intersex people, as well as people with “gender dysphoria”, do exist. Nonetheless, it’s also important to consider that there must be distinctions between males and females otherwise we would not notice when there are these complications. Professor Imperato-McGinley’s research was published in the journal Science in 1974. A “feminist scientist” named Ruth Bleier accused Imperato-McGinley of “lacking scientific objectivity” which seems like the pot calling the kettle black.

DSD conditions enable us to see the importance of hormones in influencing male and female differences as the ineffectiveness of certain hormones like T or DHT is transformative. Since it is unethical to perform potentially dangerous and life-changing experiments removing gonads or altering sex hormones in humans, conditions like 5-ARD are useful in researching how the sexes differ and develop over time.

An alternative is to study other animals like rats. Rats who, depending on their sex, have been castrated or had their ovaries removed display behaviour that is often atypical. For example, castrated male rats will show indifference to fertile female rats but, as seen in Chapter 2, will behave like normal males when injected with T. Female rats with removed ovaries will not show attraction to males or display the reflexive “lordosis pose” common in many female animals. In the lordosis pose, female mammals lower their front legs, curve their backs inward and stick their rear end up to present themselves to males for mating.

Since castrated male rats recover their sexual behaviour following injection of T, it was theorised that female rats given male levels of T would show the typical male response. Experiments in the 1930s tested this hypothesis on pregnant rats but found no difference in behaviour from females. However, the female offspring had genitals that resembled male’s. Later it was suggested that genes were responsible for the programming of sexual behaviour rather than hormones.

In the late 1950s, the scientist William C. Young reported an experiment in which T was given to female rats in utero and then again in adulthood. Unlike the previous experiment, these female rats displayed male-typical sexual behaviour such as mounting. This suggested that the T given later activated areas of the brain that had been developed by T in the womb. Young performed a similar experiment with guinea pigs which had identical results. Also, female guinea pigs given T in the womb and whose ovaries were removed would not show female sexual behaviour when injected with oestrogen or progesterone. In contrast, females who had developed normally but who later had their ovaries removed would show sex-typical behaviour when given these hormones.

Why is it necessary for T to act on the brain in utero to prepare for a second increase in T during puberty? One reason may be to initiate distinctive play behaviour in male and female young. Play behaviour in children and baby animals is thought to be in part preparation for behaviours in adulthood. Males in many animals will play fight more than females which is indicative of male competition when males mature. Males who are prevented from play fighting have been shown to be less likely to reproductively successful.

Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) is a rare genetic disorder that has similar effects as the experiments giving T to female rats and guinea pigs. During pregnancy, CAH boys and girls are exposed to high levels of T due to, in most cases, an inability to produce cortisol from progesterone. Instead, the body produces excessive intermediate androgens like T. Since girls are more sensitive to androgen exposure, the effects of CAH are often more dramatic than in boys.

Experiments have been carried out on CAH-affected boys and girls to see if their behaviour is any different from healthy boys and girls. In a 2005 study, children with and without CAH were given a variety of toys to play with, ranging from boy’s toys, girls’ toys and neutral ones. CAH girls were found to prefer playing with boy’s toys than ordinary girls and parents had little effect on this preference. CAH boys showed little difference in their play preferences with ordinary boys. Girls with higher T than average have also been observed to play with boy’s toys more.

Sport is a common domain for play in both sexes throughout their lives and T’s effect on performance in sport is explained in the next chapter. This will be covered in Part 2.

MMM#11: Force Makes the World Go Round?

Since the news is currently dominated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, I thought I’d write down some of my own thoughts about it. I am by no means an expert on either Russia or Ukraine; nor am I an expert on many of the events that led up to this moment. I was born just over a year after the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, which signified for most people the end of the Cold War and the fall of Communism, so my knowledge about the conflict between the East and West, as well as the Soviet Union, has always been after they had ended. Of course, we may be entering a Second Cold War where the threat of nuclear annihilation emerges once again in people’s minds.

I’ve been very interested in historian David Starkey’s analysis of what is going on in Eastern Europe. He has recently started a YouTube channel, which he may have created because of his own “cancelling” after making some clumsy comments about slavery, where he talks about various events in history and has given his own perspective on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Even if you don’t agree with everything David Starkey says, I recommend checking out his channel.

In this video, Dr. Starkey argues that the West’s problem with dealing with Russian President Vladimir Putin is that we think “that everybody should have exactly the same values as a nice, sensitive, woke, public schoolgirl aged 16.” In reality, there are many different perspectives from our own. Although the media believes that Putin has gone mad and is losing the conflict, David Starkey argues:

“Putin is intelligent. He is informed. He is a careful, strategic thinker. He knows what he’s doing. And he’s prepared himself to do it.”

David Starkey

This does not mean that Starkey likes Putin, as he says:

“I certainly think he’s bad. At least, he’s bad according to our values.”

Like a lot of people, David Starkey compares Putin to Adolf Hitler but this comparison, in Starkey’s case, is for a particular reason:

Mein Kampf said exactly what Hitler was going to do, and why he was going to do it. In a series of speeches, over the last two years, Putin has said exactly what he is going to do in Ukraine, and… why he’s going to do it.”

The main point of this video is that, according to Starkey, Putin sees himself as a Tsar who wants to emulate Russian historical figures like Peter the Great and Catherine the Great who conquered the fought over land that would become Ukraine. If Ukraine is to undergo “decommunisation” or “denazification”, this is to be achieved, in Putin’s mind, by “reabsorbing Ukraine into the Russian Empire.” The West doesn’t understand this because:

“Putin, unlike us, understands power. Power, and the role of force. We thought we could dispense with it. He knows you can’t.”

David Starkey makes this point further when he notes Putin’s response to a journalist asking him how could a good country actually declare war:

“Why do you think if you are good, you can’t use force? Goodness implies the possibly to defend yourself.”

Vladimir Putin

To Starkey, until recently, everyone in the West would have agreed with this statement. He makes a similar point in this GB News interview with Mark Steyn:

“We have lived in a myth since the Second World War… Broadly speaking, we haven’t had big wars because… we imagined, we in the West, that we didn’t need force. That force was nasty…”

David Starkey

In another GB News interview, with Nigel Farage, Starkey says:

“The reason that we’ve had the Liberal World Order is because the World great power, America, was prepared to fight. Let’s be honest, America is no longer prepared to fight.”

Less and less money has been spent on defence and more has been spent on “welfare, health and pensions.” Force, for David Starkey, is necessary to maintain the freedoms and beliefs we share in the West but, he believes, we have foolishly discarded this idea.

This is a fascinating point, particularly if we consider the hysteria that surrounded some of Donald Trump’s actions when he was President. Trump’s forceful behaviour was thought by many in the mainstream media to be increasing the likelihood of war. In actuality, although Trump wasn’t perfect, during his Presidency there were attempts at negotiations between the West and potentially dangerous leaders like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un and no escalation of conflict in other countries. Compare this to what has happened since Joe Biden became US President.

As the main focus of this blog is issues relating to men and women, it’s worth asking whether the increase of women in the public sphere over the past few decades has led to a de-emphasis on force, defence and power and more emphasis on personal well-being and non-violence. I’ve written elsewhere that I disagree with some of the assumptions that have been made about women’s effect on society – mainly the idea that women have excessive empathy and compassion which can be detrimental (see here for more detail), but it’s still possible that women’s influence has had some effect.

Nevertheless, the importance that societies may or may not place on force is not restricted to differences between men and women as it can divide many thinkers, regardless of sex. Thomas Sowell has written about the contrast of ideas that has divided many intellectual figures over centuries, of which the use of force is only one of them, in his great books A Conflict of Visions and Intellectuals and Society.

In some ways, the conflict in Ukraine is another battleground in the ‘Culture War’ which is dividing the West. People in the UK, US and Europe waving the Ukrainian flag and banning anything relating to Russia could be seen as examples of virtue signalling and cancel culture given that they don’t require much effort to do. There has also been pressure on large corporations like McDonald’s and Coca-Cola to suspend their activities in Russia without taking into account that this may backfire if Russian people feel they are been bullied and choose instead to rally behind Putin. I’ve also noticed that we are now supposed to write Ukraine’s capital city Kiev as “Kyiv” and other Ukrainian cities like Odessa are now written “Odesa” which I initially thought was a typo when I first saw it written this way. This is presumably to show how cultural, sophisticated and understanding we are in our solidarity with Ukraine.

It’s true that there has been almost universal support for Ukraine and universal condemnation of Putin’s actions, but, as David Starkey has described, there is still debate over the causes of this war and what Vladimir Putin and Russia want to get out of it. In the media, for example, Ukraine has been presented as a free, progressive, liberal democracy with a heroic leader in Volodymyr Zelensky whereas Putin is portrayed as a insane tyrant who has attacked Ukraine without provocation.

Alternatively, there is little attention paid to how the Western world, and NATO in particular, has contributed to Russia’s actions or the corruption in Ukrainian politics. As Peter Hitchens, in his Mail on Sunday column, writes:

“I know that our policy of Nato expansion – which we had promised not to do and which we knew infuriated Russians – played its part in bringing about this crisis. I know that Ukraine’s current government, now treated as if it was almost holy, was brought into being by a mob putsch openly backed
by the USA in 2014. I know that the much-admired President Zelensky in February 2021 closed down three opposition TV stations on the grounds of ‘national security’…I know that the opposition politician Viktor Medvedchuk was put under house arrest last year on a charge of treason. Isn’t this the sort of thing Putin does?”

Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday

I don’t support Putin or what is happening in Ukraine but neither do I think the West is entirely blameless. Part of me wants Putin to succeed in his invasion, only because I think that things might be worse if he fails and attempts a more extreme option, such as potentially using nuclear weapons. The suffering of Ukrainians may be worse if the West pushes Ukraine to resist against the odds. If we are not willing to use force ourselves, why should we expect others to?

I have no idea how the war in Ukraine will play out but I agree with David Starkey that we cannot understand our enemies unless we understand how they think.

Book Review: ‘Bad Men: The Hidden Roots of Sexual Deception, Harassment & Assault’ by David M. Buss (Part 3)

This is the final part of my review of this book. I apologise in advance, this post is even lengthier than the other ones.

Chapter 7: Sexual Coercion, Harassment and Rape

The final three chapters explore the issue of sexual coercion by men against women which may range from harassment to more extreme forms – assault and rape. In keeping with the rest of the book, David Buss tries to put forward an evolutionary perspective alongside social and cultural ones but stresses that doing so does not justify sexual coercion or make it inevitable:

“Just as modern science has created novel vaccines and drugs to eliminate many “natural” diseases, with enough knowledge we can create personal, social, and legal environments that curtail or suppress the components of male psychology that contribute to sexual coercion.”

The author cites the work of Owen Jones (no, not that one!), a legal scholar who notes that laws against sex crimes, like laws in general, are designed to try to influence human behaviour:

“For laws to be maximally effective, Jones argues, their designers must have an accurate model of human nature. The more accurate the model, the more effective the legal levers.”

One problem with this approach, in my opinion, is that it treats humans almost like machines that can be fixed and modified depending on the technology available. Even the words “designers”, “model” and ‘”levers” imply flaws in human nature are like an engineering problem that can be repaired using scientific knowledge. This more detached, clinical approach conflicts to some degree with traditional understandings of human nature in cultural and religious contexts which are predicated on morality. Laws in this context are determined on actions like sexual assault being deemed to be morally wrong. People who favour the scientific approach may consider this reasoning to be obsolete or fundamentally flawed but this would dismiss centuries of thought on human nature and its complexities. There is merit in studying the psychology of sexual coercion and assault which may be helpful in decreasing it, but there is still the problem of how such studies are interpreted and their influence on society. Feminists, for one thing, will be biased in women’s favour.

The psychology behind sexual harassment and assault are explored in this chapter. For example, women may experience unwanted looks from men which, while less intrusive than other behaviours, can still be upsetting. Certain men may find themselves drawn to looking at attractive women and find it difficult to look away thereby displaying “attention adhesion.” Men staring at women for too long can obviously lead to women feeling uncomfortable. It may shock the reader to discover that pleasure centres in the brain are activated when men look at images of beautiful women. This is harmless for the majority of men, but can cause problems for attractive women in the presence of sexual predators.

An interesting point is made here about evolutionary mismatch offering a possible explanation for the confusion men and women can feel regarding sexual harassment. Traditionally, men and women worked predominantly in separate workplaces which meant the majority of their interactions with the opposite sex would be amongst friends and family. Although male and female-dominated workplaces still exist, men and women now work much more often in “sexually integrated” environments, which obviously increases the chances of sexual attraction, flirting and all of the complications that this can create. A young, attractive woman may use her looks to get ahead at work and an older man may offer promotions to such women in return for sexual favours – this is known as “quid pro quo harassment.” Dr. Buss also makes the argument that mixed workplaces decrease the presence of women who may act like female kin in protecting a woman from male harassment. However, this doesn’t take into account ‘white knights’ – i.e. men who take it upon themselves to be overprotective and deferential towards women. It won’t be a surprise to learn that over 80 percent of complaints about sexual harassment are from women. Dr. Buss writes:

“Male power and patriarchy are clearly part of the picture. Men historically created the workplace rules and influenced social norms that overlooked sexual harassment.”

While it’s possible that men may have overlooked certain issues that women might face in the workplace due to being male, societies have often denounced men who were lecherous or predatory and you can find depictions in old films and TV shows of women slapping men who are too forward in their advances.

Studies have apparently found unconscious links between power and sex but only in men who are likely to sexually harass:

“In short, power and sex are linked, but primarily in the minds of a subset of men. This may explain why only a minority of men in positions of power over women sexually harass them; many men with power do not.”

It makes sense for power and sex to be linked since powerful, high status males are more attractive to women from an evolutionary standpoint and it is suggested in the book that men strive for power for this reason.

The author also points out that women’s perception over what constitutes sexual harassment can vary depending on their attraction to the man in question:

“Women evaluated sexual advances from a physically attractive man as significantly less disturbing than advances from a physically unattractive man. Workplace sexual advances from men low in desirability, apparently, are more upsetting.”

It is difficult for men in this situation, however, to assess if the woman they want to approach is interested in them unless men make an advance in the first place. In keeping with the rest of the book, the men deemed most likely to sexually harass are the ones who pursue short-term mating strategies and are high in the Dark Triad personality traits.

Harassment can vary in its intensity and in severe cases can lead to sexual coercion and rape. Dr. Buss carried out a study with a colleague in which men and women were asked if they ever felt their lives were in danger. A small percentage of women feared that they could be raped and then murdered despite the fact that this is a rare occurrence. Another paradox noted is that women fear stranger rape, which makes up 10-20 percent of such cases, rather than acquaintance rape, which makes up 80-90 percent. It is suggested that this may be another example of evolutionary mismatch reflecting when humans lived in small groups and could be attacked by outsiders but, for me, this greater fear of strangers is likely because humans have a general fear of the unknown. The author also suggests that the low rates of stranger rape may be a direct result of women’s greater fear of it as they will be more wary of being attacked by a stranger.

Since the book examines possible evolutionary explanations for sexual coercion and assault, the question of whether men have developed adaptations to rape is explored which Dr. Buss acknowledges is a controversial proposition. The evolutionary scientists Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer have put forward two competing theories for the origin of rape:

  • Randy Thornhill proposed that rape is an adaptation to allow men to sexually reproduce even if a woman is unwilling.
  • Craig Palmer argued that rape is a by-product of other male traits such as aggression, a desire for sexual variety, short-term mating etc.

Several studies have been carried out to test the veracity of these theories such as getting men to listen to women describing episodes of consensual sex or rape. Most men were aroused by the consensual sex descriptions but not the rape ones. Not surprisingly, convicted rapists were aroused by both scenarios. Again it seems that a small subgroup of men are most likely to engage in these extreme behaviours. Moreover, they tend to score high on psychopathy and narcissism and low on empathy. Later on in this chapter the author writes:

“A small percentage of men leave a long trail of victims in their wake, whether criminally charged or not. The fact that most rapists are serial rather than onetime rapists partially resolves an apparent paradox noted in the scientific literature – that a large number of women report being raped, but a much smaller number of men report committing rape.”

One theory that has been suggested to explain how rape could have been an adaptation posits that males deprived of opportunities to have sex with women consensually – undesirable, low status males for example – could do so by force. This has been called the “mate-deprivation hypothesis.” The fact that most convicted rapists come from poorer backgrounds is possible evidence to support this, but David Buss argues against the mate-deprivation theory. According to Buss, lower rates of convictions for men in higher social groups, such as Harvey Weinstein, are the result of them having the wealth and power to silence or pay off victims.

Apparently, men in college who are popular and have high status, which means they will be more successful with women, are more likely to admit to behaviour that would be defined as rape. The reasoning here seems to be that such men have a sense of entitlement which means they will prioritise their own wants and desires above others:

“the wealthy, it turns out, tend to be more indifferent to other people’s misery. According to this hypothesis, it is popular, high-status macho men, not mate-deprived low-status men, who are more likely to rape.”

It’s a good job women don’t find these kind of men attractive then isn’t it? In my view, the psychology of the subset of men who are most likely to harass or rape women is more important than their socioeconomic background, although their motivations may be influenced by being rich and entitled or poor and desperate.

David Buss further writes:

“This fact is exemplified by a quote from television celebrity and subsequently elected president Donald Trump, boasting about getting away with sexually assaulting women precisely because of his status: “When you’re a star they let you do it… You can do anything…Grab them by the pussy.”

Dr. Buss risks dividing his readers here by using a deeply partisan figure like Donald Trump as an example and it hinders the objectivity he presumably wants to maintain. While Donald Trump’s comments were crass and nobody could accuse him of being a perfect gentlemen, the important line to consider in what he said was “they let you do it.” This implies that whatever Trump was doing was not met with resistance from the women. He might have also said “grab them by the pussy” as an EXAMPLE of what you could do if you were famous enough rather than something he has actually done. Are we supposed to pretend that some women don’t throw themselves at powerful, high status men?

Other studies suggest that men who use some kind of sexual coercion tend to be more successful with women which is used as further evidence that higher status men are more likely to sexually assault. However, doesn’t this imply that women are receptive to some coercion from men? While this doesn’t excuse sexual assaults, it does suggest there is a ‘grey area’ in a lot of cases of sexual coercion. It should also be noted that some women might be motivated to prosecute higher status men for harassment/rape than lower status men since women may receive greater compensation and status for doing so, reflecting how people will generally sue wealthier people, who can afford to pay out, rather than poorer people. Such a suggestion would be too taboo for this book though.

The case of Paul Bernardo, a Canadian serial killer and rapist, is another interesting example countering the mate deprivation idea of rape since Bernardo was attractive and could pick up women easily. Again, what is more important, in my view, is the psychological underpinnings of sexual predators rather than their high or low status. The author concludes from all of this that Randy Thornhill’s theory of rape being an adaptation is incorrect.

David Buss also explores Susan Brownmiller’s claim that rape is “a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.” Several studies have been carried out to try to deduce how men relate to rape such as exploring sexual fantasies and whether men would rape women if they could get away with it. Judging from questionnaires, men who might assault women are a minority but it is pointed out that women have been raped by men in wars; when the rule of law has broken down. This is possibly due to such women being seen as the ‘enemy’ by the perpetrators. Some men may have sexual fantasies about raping but the book doesn’t mention that women may also have sexual fantasies about being raped and, in some cases, may have orgasmed during a rape, not that this justifies it.

Marital rape is another topic explored. By 1993, every state in the USA had laws prohibiting it but other countries still do not have laws against it. Laws against marital rape are another way in which feminist thinking has influenced changes to deal with an apparent oversight by men. Countries without such laws are gradually decreasing though as Dr. Buss notes:

“The cultural progression of laws and attitudes surrounding this form of institutionalized sexual assault is rapid and moving in only one direction.”

I don’t share David Buss’ view that absence of marital rape laws are somehow “institutionalized sexual assault” but his view is one shared by many people. It seems likely to me that one reason why there was no law such as “marital rape” in the past is because of the difficulty in prosecuting a rape case within a marriage where sexual relations are expected to take place. It could be argued that, like domestic violence, there were already laws against assault that could cover such cases anyway. Were women too weak, stupid or helpless to use these laws if they needed to? Since David Buss is nearly forty years older than I am, you might think I have no place to lecture him on what people thought in the past, but I’m sure other people of a similar age or older than Dr. Buss could make the same point as I have.

Although David Buss rejects that rape is an evolved adaptation in men, he does think that aspects of men’s “mating psychology” such as desire for short-term mating, sexual variety and attraction to younger women does contribute to such behaviours occurring, which is more in line with the idea that rape is a by-product of these characteristics. I would agree with this alongside the likelihood of psychopathy or some other mental disorder.

Chapter 8: Women’s defences against sexual assault

The eighth chapter opens with a quote by Gavin de Becker about most men fearing being laughed at or humiliated by a romantic prospect while most women fear being raped and murdered. A similar quote is often attributed to The Handmaid’s Tale author Margaret Atwood. Whether or not this is true, in reality men are more likely to be murder victims than women and can be raped in prison or in war.

It is true that women have being raped and murdered by men throughout history and often in times of war. In general though, women of reproductive age were kept as sex slaves whereas men were murdered. This has been evident from archeological studies showing men seemingly killed in battle whilst younger women are absent. Genghis Khan is one historical figure who was notable for this particular practice and is thought to have countless descendants as a result.

Women may have developed adaptations to deal with this reality regardless of whether or not men have evolved adaptations to rape. Again, here David Buss puts forward possible evolutionary explanations for men and women’s behaviour.

There is a lot more feminist influence in this later part of the book as is indicated by the opening quote to this chapter. Whilst reading this, I began to wonder if David Buss had one of his (female?) students help write it for him. I’ll show some quotes to illustrate this soon. Since rape and sexual assault is an unpleasant and sensitive subject, I’ll try to be as clear as I can where I disagree with what is claimed in the book and not downplay the seriousness of rape.

To give an example of feminist influence, the author claims that while sexual aggression is rated as highly upsetting by women, men underestimate how upsetting women would find it:

“These findings were presciently predicted by feminist scholars who made a major contribution to the understanding of rape from the victim’s perspective.”

Do men seriously not sympathise with female victims? I find that hard to believe myself. How come the narrative of sexual violence is so skewed towards female victims if that’s the case? Surely if men have so much power in society, and so underestimate female feelings about sexual abuse, it would not be such a big talking point? Isn’t it also the case that “feminist scholars” have a particular axe to grind?

Another quote I wrote down in my notes while reading this book prompted me to write ‘What!’ at the side of it:

“because most police officers are men (87 percent in the United States) with a male sexual psychology, they may lack sufficient empathy for rape victims, which leads to greater leniency toward sexual predators.”

I know there’s currently a lot of animosity towards the police, but are we seriously to believe that officers wouldn’t sympathise with female rape victims because they are men? What about men’s protective instincts? What is described as leniency towards male sexual predators could simply be impartiality. If anything, the opposite is true in that society is pressured to side with women accusers – hence #believeallwomen – and condemn accused men. This distortion between what is claimed about rape cases and the reality reminds me of Peter Hitchens’ remark that rape is now seen as ‘”a crime against feminism.”

Nevertheless, there are obvious reasons for women to fear being raped as it can lead to unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and bodily harm. There may also be social costs to being a rape victim. For example, many women were raped during the Rwandan genocide and faced shunning from their societies because they were no longer virgins and had unwanted children. In some cases, a man might divorce a woman who was raped because of feeling cuckolded and she may be unable to find another man. There are psychological costs as well as a victim might lose self-esteem and be afraid of intimacy. It is possible for these reasons that female victims may conceal the fact that they have been sexually assaulted although I think this will be less common in Western countries. Concealment of assault also presents risks as it prevents victims from getting help with their trauma. This shows that there are legitimate reasons for supporting victims of rape but this needs to be balanced with other considerations.

It has been theorised that one possibility women desire men who are taller and stronger than they are is to deal with the potential threat of male rapists. Sarah Mesnick and Margo Wilson put forward the “bodyguard hypothesis'” which suggests that women pair-bonded with such men to deter sexual aggression from other men. Dr. Buss notes that women could benefit from choosing strong men for many other reasons as well.

The chances of a woman being raped vary on different factors: married women are less likely to be raped than single/unmarried women possibly due to lifestyle differences and women who are surrounded by friends are also less likely to be sexually assaulted since friends can act as bodyguards. Women are in fact more fearful than men of being victims of many different types of crime even though they are, on average, less likely to be so. This is known as the “fear of crime paradox.” One reason for this paradox is possibly because women’s fear of sexual assault, where they are more likely to be victims than men, drives their fear of other crimes like mugging or robbery.

There is also another paradox, which has already been mentioned, of women fearing stranger attacks more than attacks from acquaintances even though the latter is more common. Dr. Buss also explains that infants have an innate fear of strangers that is evident cross-culturally and writes:

“Infants do not fear all strangers equally. They show special fear of unfamiliar males, suggesting that male strangers have been more dangerous than female strangers.”

This may be linked to stepfathers killing off children of rival males but I would replace “have been” in this quote with ‘appear’ since males tend to be larger and more intimidating than females. We are better able to perceive threats that appear to us than we are unknown threats, hence the expression “better the devil you know than the one you don’t.” Infanticide is actually more often committed by women although this is to some extent related to women being more likely to look after infants than men.

Feminists don’t really help women by obsessing over rape either. Since younger women are more likely to be victims of rape than older women, they tend to be more fearful of it and so gradually become less fearful as they get older. David Buss makes a good point that women would be better off if they were aware of their own “psychological wisdom” in this regard instead of believing that they are always vulnerable to rape. Women could also benefit from becoming physically fit and taking self-defence classes as this correlates with reduced fear of sexual assault.

Women are more likely to fear being raped at night than during the day and are also more likely to fear rape if they know other women who have being victims. Likewise, women fear rape more if they have been sexually harassed. The fact that women who fear rape the most tend to avoid and be more cautious in certain situations is suggested as evidence that these actions are an adaptation. However, this behaviour is common for many things that people are afraid of. The author believes that eliminating the actual threat of rape using scientific knowledge would help the costs women may suffer from being fearful of it.

Vigilance is one response to threats which activates the body to become alert and watchful and heightens the senses. The “auditory looming bias” is one example of this as people overestimate the closeness of fast-approaching sounds than fast-receding ones. “Freezing” or “attentive immobility” of the body additionally increases sensitivity to sound, sight, etc. One study found that an attacked woman who retaliates aggressively by biting, punching, kicking or using a weapon is around 50 percent more likely to escape being raped than a woman who doesn’t resist at all. This reinforces the previous point that women who know self-defence may be less likely to be afraid of rape, although here Dr. Buss says the evidence is mixed. Screaming, yelling and running away are also effective. Similarly, interviews with rapists suggests they avoid targeting women who they think will fight back. In contrast, pleading with the rapist is less likely to work.

However, even the most athletic and physically fit woman may not be able to avert a rapist as she may be overpowered, tied up, drugged or threatened with a weapon. A common defence mechanism is this situation is “tonic immobility” in which the body becomes numb by decreasing blood pressure and analgesic or insensitive to pain. 37 percent of rape victims are said to have experienced tonic immobility leading to a separate term called “rape-induced paralysis.” One evolutionary theory for tonic immobility suggests that it minimises the severity of an attack if escape is not possible. Whatever advantages tonic immobility may have during a rape are inconclusive though. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is also common in rape like it is in many highly intense and stressful situations. This may be an adaptation to cope with traumatic events.

One potential complication from victims experiencing tonic immobility is the possibility that the police, judges and juries may question claims of rape if a victim didn’t fight back. There may also be doubts of a claim of rape if a woman’s body responds to the act like it would if intercourse was consensual, such as her having vaginal lubrication. Dr. Buss notes that both tonic immobility and lubrication are involuntary responses so should not be used as evidence against an accusation of rape. In my view, a lot of this depends on if the case is a stranger rape or acquaintance rape which brings its own complications. It is argued that rape is underreported and one reason is because of the prevalence of victim blaming but I’m less convinced about this seeing as sympathy is often with women over men.

There’s definitely a discussion to be had about rape and how to prosecute it but that would involve looking at it from different perspectives, not just feminist ones.

Chapter 9: The “sex gap” and conclusion

The final chapter in this book looks at the cultural issues of sexual assault and what the author believes are ways to reduce them:

“I am convinced that deep knowledge of our evolved sexual psychology, and especially the ways in which that psychology differs on average between women and men, is indispensable for reducing conflicts between the sexes that have been ongoing for millions of years.”

Dr. Buss insists however that his ideas are merely suggestions to be studied further rather than solutions. “One sign of progress” according to the book is the well-publicised cases of Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell which are evidence that “victims of sexual violence are coming forward and refusing to be silenced.” Another sign of progress is apparently the “zero-tolerance policy” for sexual harassment at work. While it’s a good thing if victims of sexual assault feel more confident speaking out about it, I’m less convinced by the development of #MeToo and other causes. It’s not as if sexual harassment is a recent discovery and there is growing intolerance towards those who criticise its excesses.

The sexual “arms-race” between men and women that David Buss described in Chapter 1 is now being fought in a rapidly changing world. Dating apps, for example, provide people the opportunity to meet an ideal mate but also give them, along with sexual deceivers and predators, abundant choices. Pornography is another example:

“Online pornography allows individuals to explore creative sexual possibilities they never knew existed but also creates entirely unrealistic expectations for real-life sexual interactions. Sex dolls, sex robots, and virtual sex technology… may diminish some of the rage of incels or even reduce rape rates but also may exacerbate the harmful sexual objectification of women.”

One solution is to understand the “gap” between men and women’s sexual psychology. Failing to recognise sex differences in mating psychology, according to Dr. Buss, is the biggest hindrance to reducing conflict. One example discussed previously is men mistaking friendliness from women as sexual interest. A second example is the difference in “sexual disgust” between men and women:

“Are men aware that women find more things sexually disgusting than they do? Judging from the number of men who send unsolicited photographic images of their decontextualized genitals to women, the answer is a resounding “no.””

A statistic presented here claims that 27 percent of milliennial-age men in the UK admitted to sending such images to women and 30 percent of men think that women will find the images “sexy.” It’s important to note, like with any other statistic, that the numbers only apply to the people in the sample group. In reality, the claim should be: ’27 percent of millennial-age men in the UK surveyed by this particular study admitted to sending pictures of their genitals to women.’ David Buss argues that some men “commit a major mind-reading error” as they fail to understand that women would be disgusted by “dick pics.” Are men really so ignorant about this though? Boys often like to tease girls by doing things that will ‘gross them out’ as anybody who grew up with a sister will understand. While I don’t approve of men sending pictures of their genitals to women, the fact that women would be especially disgusted by such images may be the main motivation in sending them. Also, most men don’t find images of women’s genitals particularly sexy, unless breasts count as female genitals. Further examples of sex differences include levels of anxiety, preference for casual sex and sexual variety, regret for missed sexual opportunities, effect of visual stimuli etc.

It is here that the author reverts back into feminist mode. David Buss also believes that men “vastly underestimate the emotional horrors” women who have been raped experience as explored in Chapter 8. I’m more sceptical of this idea as I’ve mentioned before. Furthermore, the book argues that men should be required to learn “about the harms women suffer from sexual assault, from anxiety to PTSD” as if we aren’t aware of this fact already. Men may not recognise trauma suffered by women who are raped as there are “no real parallels in men’s minds” which ignores that men can be raped by men as well. David Buss believed he was “unusually empathetic” towards rape victims because of his own studies and from reading accounts of rape victims such as Alice Sebold’s book Lucky. This book was in the news recently as the man who was convicted of Ms. Sebold’s rape was found to have been wrongfully imprisoned!

Perhaps wearing a ‘This is what a feminist looks like’ T-shirt while writing it, Dr. Buss says:

“I discovered that I too had vastly underestimated the psychological toll that sexual assault inflicts on women. Undoubtedly I still cannot fully grasp, after decades of study, the psychological toll it takes on women. Men may think they understand, but I don’t think they ever can fully. I hope that this book helps men move a little closer to bridging the gap.”

My T-shirt remark might be too dismissive: I don’t doubt the sincerity of David Buss’ feelings here and I don’t want to come across as unsympathetic towards victims of rape. However, I question the insistence that men have so little understanding of female suffering from sexual assault, and that sexual assault has such catastrophic effects on women. Obviously, Dr. Buss has more knowledge about this than I have, but there’s still a problem with viewing women as permanent victims and men as heartless and unsympathetic towards them. Why should I feel bad about the actions of other men? And can’t excessive sympathy result in infantilising women? At the risk of sounding flippant, I’m not buying a ticket for Dr. Buss’ guilt trip. He’s likely a decent guy with good intentions, but as the classic saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

David Buss argues that if we understand the gap between men and women’s sexual psychology, we can, as underground tube stations signify, “mind the gap” and promote understanding between the sexes. Notwithstanding the logic behind this, I have problems with the solutions which are suggested here.

For instance, the author questions the validity of having a “reasonable person” rule for laws such as stalking and sexual assault, since men and women differ in anxiety levels amongst other things. Although Dr. Buss concedes that writing laws as sex-neutral is laudable, he states that:

“a sex-neutral law can harm women, especially if the judge… is a “reasonable man” and consults his own intuitions about fears and emotional distress, or if the jury is composed of a combination of “reasonable men” and “reasonable women.””

Dr. Buss suggests that a “reasonable woman” rule could be used instead. The author compares this to studies in medicine which have found that certain doses of drugs affect men and women differently, which means that the sex of the patient will determine the treatment given. If laws are based on human nature, David Buss argues:

“If that nature differs between women and men, then perhaps laws, like medicine, need to take those differences into account.”

The problem here is that medicine and the law are not the same thing. Law is based more upon ideas of morality and philosophy than it is on science, even though both morals and philosophy play an important role in medicine. Like I mentioned before, treating law and human nature in a purely scientific way has its disadvantages. While many people recognise the dangers of treating men and women as exactly the same, there is also danger in treating men and women as completely different, such as in areas like the law where it can lead to preferential treatment of one sex over the other. How far do we go down this road? Should we have individual laws since people differ on an individual level? In future, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are people advocating for laws preventing male judges from presiding over rape cases, or only all-female juries being allowed, or even doing doing away with juries altogether.

Sexual conflict could also be reduced with the “crumbling of patriarchy.” I’ve already gone into my disagreements with the author over the motivations behind “patriarchal laws” in other countries, which, to my mind, are based on many things other than men simply wanting to oppress women. The author writes favourably about developments such as the #MeToo movement and the introduction of marital rape laws whereas I am less encouraged since these advancements are based upon the narrative of women being controlled and victimised by men. While I don’t believe that women should be mistreated, many of the social changes relating to men and women that have occurred in recent decades are based on biased and sometimes inaccurate assumptions. Here, Dr. Buss writes:

“Patriarchy is collapsing – its institutions, its social norms, and the expression of unseemly mating mechanisms that gave rise to male advantage. But what are those mating mechanisms that led to patriarchal institutions and social norms to begin with? And how easily can the expression of those mechanisms be suppressed?”

This quote wouldn’t look out of place in a women’s studies textbook, if such things even exist. It is possible that David Buss is forced to say these things to avoid jeopardising his career? I understand that he is less free to speak his mind if he thinks differently, but I don’t think I could be so in line with feminist thinking as Dr. Buss appears to be if, privately, I was against it. Given his age, it is possible that Dr. Buss has been influenced by his younger (and mostly female?) students and thinks their views are more “enlightened” than his own.

David Buss does point out that certain aspects of “patriarchy” are the result of female mate preferences:

“Feminist scholars rightly stress the importance of power in sexual conflict. It must be recognized, however, that men’s motivations for power, status, and resources exist in part because women have preferred to mate with men who possess power, status, and resources. Neglecting this part of the causal origins of sexual conflict will impede efforts to alter it.”

The argument presented here is whether women’s preference for high-status men can be altered in ways which may reduce sexual conflict. It is pointed out that women prioritise many qualities other than status and resources such as kindness and the author describes knowing a woman who has paired with a lower status man after bad relationships with higher status ones. Additionally, modern women no longer require men for protection and resources as they once did which may have an affect on male behaviour. This however doesn’t take into account that environments can change suddenly and a safe, healthy and wealthy society could collapse following a catastrophe which would make traditional male traits desirable again.

Another strategy is to “curb male possessiveness” which may lead to jealousy and violence as described in previous chapters. The book states that this possessiveness is “one key cause of patriarchy”:

“One way to curtail men’s proprietary mindset is to empower women – a trend that started with first-wave feminists who ushered in women’s right to vote and continues today with women’s increasing access to their own resources.”

There is a problem here though if men feel like they are being pushed to the sidelines or are confused about what their role is in society, which has been one outcome of these changes, whatever the benefits have come from them.

Other issues that may contribute to sexual assault are the sexual objectification of women and “sex ratios” – the number of women relative to men in an environment. A more sensible suggestion put forward is to avoid men who possess Dark Triad traits which can often be detected by their behaviour.

The book concludes by stating that “men’s sexual violence towards women remains the most widespread human rights problem in the world” which is indicative of the “world comes to an end. Women most affected” mindset. Sexual violence against women is a legitimate problem, but rather than seeing it as one problem among many, we’re supposed to think that women’s suffering is worse than any other group’s.

David Buss also writes:

“Female choice about when, where, with whom, and under which conditions they consent to sex is the deepest and most fundamental component of women’s sexual psychology. It is a fundamental human right. Although men have coevolved strategies to undermine it, that freedom of choice should never be compromised.”

This sounds reasonable on the surface, but what about women who make bad choices, such as having children with many different men and not taking any responsibility for their actions? An issue that I think modern societies will eventually have to contend with is how to have “female choice” alongside declining marriage and birth rates and men increasingly withdrawing from society. Can women make any choice they want to without thinking about how this affects men? While I’m not advocating for a Handmaid’s Tale society where women are completely subjugated, women do have to make compromises with men in order for the sexes to peacefully co-exist. The alternative will not reduce sexual conflict.

Summary: This probably wasn’t the best introduction to David Buss for me since I found a lot in this book that I disagreed with. On the other hand, there was plenty of interesting information that suggests his previous books are worth exploring. If the reader similarly found this review interesting, I recommend they check out Dr. Buss’ other books before deciding if they want to read this one.

Thank you for slogging through this review if you read the whole of it.

Book Review: ‘Bad Men: The Hidden Roots of Sexual Deception, Harassment & Assault’ by David M. Buss (Part 2)

Bad Men by David Buss | Hachette UK

Chapter 4: More relationship trouble

The primary focus of this chapter is jealousy and how it is involved in sexual conflict. The author describes how jealousy has a motivational function as it spurs us into action if we fear losing something, or, in the case of sexual jealousy, someone. The adaptive functions of jealousy in men and women are very similar since both sexes suffer “reproductive harms” if a relationship breaks down. Jealousy can be triggered by an imbalanced welfare trade-off ratio or a mate value discrepancy as described in the previous chapter.

Sexual jealousy, however, often presents itself differently in men and women as they can suffer from a broken relationship in unique ways. If a husband and father discovers his wife has been cheating on him, he may suspect he’s a victim of paternity fraud whereas a woman many fear abandonment and loss of resources if she finds out her husband has been seeing another woman. These fears and feelings of jealousy are understandably stronger in societies that have high paternal investment and/or are poorer and more traditional than Western countries. Men lower in mate value are also said to be more controlling.

Men fear sexual jealousy more than emotional jealousy whereas the opposite is true for women which matches the potential disadvantages that both sexes may suffer from infidelity or one person ending the relationship. This difference has been found by studies conducted worldwide. However, both men and women can be sexually and emotionally jealous as both are linked. In more traditional, non-Western countries, women also strongly fear sexual infidelity by their husbands as this could lead to diversion of resources or abandonment which presents harsher consequences for them.

Members of the same sex can also be targets of jealousy as they are potential mate rivals or mate poachers. For men, a ‘rival’ who exceeds them in status or strength may be a target of their jealousy whilst in women, a female rival who is considered more attractive than them will make them feel jealous. In response, either sex may try to undermine their rival by disparaging their status or appearance. The author writes that it is important to understand the psychology of sexual jealousy as it’s the leading cause of violence within relationships:

“Male sexual jealousy is the leading cause of the murder of adult women, accounting for between 50 and 70 percent of all such homicides. Police know this. When women are murdered, the prime suspects are boyfriends, husbands, ex-boyfriends, and ex-husbands. Although jealousy sometimes motivates women to murder, only 3 percent of murdered men are killed by their romantic partners or exes, and many of these female-perpetrated homicides are women defending themselves against a jealously violent man.”

I’ll explore my own thoughts about this in more detail in the next chapter. It would be interesting to know how many male on male homicides are motivated by female sexual jealousy though.

Since jealous people in a relationship may feel under threat, they can engage in information gathering as a way to ascertain the source of their feelings and how it may affect them. This action is compared to a gazelle detecting the presence of a predator and becoming watchful and alert to evade danger. Information gathering can range from calling a partner to find out their location, looking through their personal belongings or turning up unexpectedly wherever they happen to be. Dr. Buss conducted studies with newlywed couples and found that both men and women were vigilant in mate guarding. For men, their vigilance was heightened if they perceived their wives as very attractive:

“For example, a vigilant man might introduce his partner to everyone as “my wife” and drape his arm around her when other men are around. Yes, men have a long and sordid history of treating women as possessions.”

But wouldn’t this be the same as a woman clinging to her boyfriend/husband if she saw an attractive woman nearby? Can’t women be as possessive as men? The book doesn’t say. Men who are particularly vigilant may confront and pick fights with men they think may be getting too close to their wife/girlfriend. It’s worth considering here that some women may like men who act in this way although that might have been too controversial to mention in this book. Friends can also be a danger as they are often in close proximity and can share similar interests with couples. As you can imagine, women tend to be more vigilant when their men are high in status since they will likely attract female attention.

Men high in the Dark Triad traits are particularly prone to feelings of jealousy and exhibiting controlling behaviour. They may also create jealousy in their wife/girlfriends by engaging with other women. Jealousy in these men may cause them to yell, threaten, manipulate and even attack their female partners. Women may have adapted tactics to evade men’s mate guarding if it is harmful to them, such as if they are in a controlling relationship. Mate guarding might also disadvantage women because it prevents them from starting another relationship and potentially ‘trading up.’ However, in this scenario, the men in question may be simply trying avoid being taken advantage of by a hypergamous woman.

Tactics women may use to avoid mate guarding include hiding things from their male partner, interacting with other men behind their partner’s back and avoiding places where the women can be checked up on. Women may also avoid ‘public displays of affection’ (PDAs) such as holding hands or kissing in public which signal that they are in a relationship. Women who perceive their male partner as too controlling may also become angry and threaten to end the relationship if it is too smothering.

David Buss also describes another predictor of controlling behaviour from men:

“Which men are most likely to be controlling? Those who are lower in mate value. These men ramp up heavy mate guarding because they believe they have lucked out in attracting a desirable woman and believe that she will be difficult or impossible to replace.”

Men who lack resources will find it difficult to retain a woman, especially if she considers herself more attractive than him, which makes it more likely she will try to avoid being mate guarded. A woman may get out of a relationship by establishing a new relationship then leaving her current one. This is known as “monkey branching” as it’s similar to how a monkey will let go of one branch only after it has grasped another one. According to the author, there have been no scientific studies conducted on men avoiding women’s mate guarding but he believes it is just as common and men likely use the same or similar tactics as women.

Welfare trade-off ratios (WTRs), described in Chapter 3, are a recurring feature in relationships as situations can change which alter it in favour of one half over the other. A high WTR means that you place more value on your partner’s wellbeing over your own whereas a low WTR means you will act more in your own self-interest. WTR can be ‘recalibrated’ so that one half of a couple invests more in the other half thereby increasing it. It has been speculated by psychologists like Aaron Sell that anger is used to increase WTR by making the person who is the target of that anger value the angry person more – this has been called ‘the recalibration theory of anger.’ Essentially, the angry person can prompt the other person in the relationship to try to alleviate that anger and thus invest in them more. The alternative is a downward spiral where both partners distance from each other.

The less desirable partner might also intentionally make their other half jealous by flirting with other people. This is apparently a more common strategy for women than men and common in high Dark Triad individuals. The author notes that invoking jealousy can be a dangerous tactic as it could lead to violence. Although these behaviours are prevalent in unstable relationships, David Buss points out:

“mate guarding is a serious business. In long-term relationships, partners get complacent and take each other for granted. Periodically recalibrating your partner’s WTR can be an important corrective.”

Forgiveness is also used alongside anger and jealousy to alter WTR. If anger is met with one partner increasing their WTR, the other partner may forgive them and stabilise the relationship. This can result in an upward spiral rather than a downward one.

‘The serial-mating solution’ is one alternative to deal with the problems that occur in long-term relationships. Instead of two people trying to stick together despite their difficulties, people may instead move in and out of relationships after they have “outgrown” the other person. David Buss compares this to the different friendships we experience throughout our lives which sometimes last only for a brief period of time. Serial-mating can allow for different experiences but might also make it difficult to form new relationships if you have “baggage” from the previous ones. One example is forming a new relationship after a divorce where children may be involved. The author falls back into feminist mode when he writes:

“Women are especially likely to suffer economic hardship after a marriage dissolves. Compared to men, women experience a greater loss of household income, are more likely to single parent, and are more prone to plunge below the poverty line.”

What isn’t mentioned here is the loss of income that men can suffer from paying child support and not being able, for whatever reason, to see their children.

The chapter concludes by offering another alternative to deal with potential relationship problems: becoming “irreplaceable” to your partner by maintaining mate value in relation to theirs, being more appealing than potential suitors and investing in them and their unique interests.

Chapter 5: Violence against women (and men) in relationships

As briefly mentioned, when taken to extremes, jealousy can culminate in one partner using violence against the other and is one of the causes of “intimate partner violence” (IPV) or what is more widely known as ‘domestic violence.’ As this is a book about “bad men”, most of the focus in this chapter is directed towards male violence against women. Dr. Buss describes how IPV is often thought to be caused by several factors including a pathology suffered by the perpetrator, growing up in a violent household, and gender inequality and the patriarchy. It is noted, however, that IPV is also common in the supposedly non-patriarchal Scandinavian countries so attributing IPV to the latter is insufficient.

Here the book describes how Russian law has no provisions that specifically deal with IPV which is reflected in other countries as well. I’m no expert on Russia’s legal system, but it should be noted that laws against assault and battery are commonplace in many countries and women can presumably use these laws if they are dealing with an abusive partner. IPV is illegal in all US states but is apparently so prevalent that it has to be dealt with at a federal level. Note again though that this depends on the validity of the claims made and what constitutes IPV which, increasingly, has a broad definition. Later it is claimed that IPV increased during the Covid-19 lockdowns but I’ve seen other sources that claim this is dubious.

I found reading this chapter frustrating as it was hard for me to pin down what David Buss’ perception of IPV was in terms of the prevalence of male and female perpetrators. For example, he writes:

“The more serious the abuse… the larger the gender disparity. Most IPV victims who end up in hospital are women. Men’s violence typically does substantially more damage. Every major city has shelters for battered women. In contrast, one of the country’s only shelters for battered men opened in Dallas in the year 2017. Women undoubtedly abuse men, but they generally inflict less damage.”

I knew I was going to write a review of this book so I had a response in my head ready to counter this claim. Dr. Buss, however, seemed to have anticipated a similar response because he suggests that many male victims of IPV are not taken as seriously as females:

“I know of one case in which a man called the police after being badly battered by his wife, his head bleeding profusely from a blow from a frying pan. Upon arrival, the police discouraged him from reporting the crime, despite his obvious injuries: “If she so much as broke a fingernail, you will likely be arrested, not her.” He declined to press charges.”

Later on in this chapter, he also writes:

“Some women do assault their intimate partners, and some researchers argue that female perpetrators are as common as male perpetrators. This research was ignored for many years by scholars partly because male-initiated IPV leads to greater physical injury, but also partly because it contradicted the narrative of “patriarchy” as the primary explanation.”

This at least shows that David Buss wants to be objective as much as he can about IPV so I commend him for that. It has been pointed out to me that since David Buss is an academic, he has to go along with feminist ideas to avoid damaging his career. Anonymous writers like myself and others do not have to worry about this so we have the freedom to express more controversial viewpoints. I still think Dr. Buss genuinely believes some of the feminist rhetoric but ultimately, only Dr. Buss knows what he really thinks.

The book’s focus on female victims is evident by the claim that there is a “strong gender asymmetry” in violence due to men’s greater physical strength, reflected in the previous quotes. This ignores, however, that women can use objects to compensate for their generally weaker physical strength as a way to attack their male partners. Psychological damage, such as feeling emasculated perhaps, is also not considered although this, admittedly, would be very hard to detect and quantify.

One motivation for harming an intimate partner may be as a means to prevent them from leaving – mate retention – and it is claimed that men lacking economic resources are more likely to use violence as a “last-ditch” attempt to retain mates. This link may also be due to the fact that lacking resources or being in financial trouble can cause frustration and distress which increases the possibility of violence.

Another motive for abuse is as a way to control the abuser’s spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend as their self-esteem will decline and they may become dependent on the abuser for their sense of self-worth. For women, in particular, physical abuse will damage their appearance so it is also a way to lower ‘mate value’. An abusive partner may also try to manipulate their other half psychologically by making them think they are losing their mind. This is commonly know as “gaslighting” which takes its name from the play and film Gaslight. Gaslighting allows the abuser to, in David Buss’ words, “zombify” the victim’s mind as they give up their mental perception to the abuser.

Later, Dr. Buss makes a bold and shocking claim about the likelihood of IPV against pregnant women:

“One of the most disturbing predictors of a man perpetrating partner violence is when his partner gets pregnant.”

Women who are abused whilst pregnant are more likely to be carrying a child of another man. A study from Nicaragua found this disturbing feature of violence against pregnant women: attacks directed at a woman’s abdomen in an attempt to abort the foetus. Studies have also found women with children from another man were, according to the book, five times more likely to end up in a women’s shelter. A study of a hundred women in a shelter found that 79% ended up going back to their violent boyfriend/husband for varying reasons. It won’t come as much surprise to find that men with borderline personality disorder (BPD), psychopathy or the other two Dark Triad traits are more likely to commit IPV.

What all of this makes clear is that IPV is more likely to occur in unstable family environments and often without the biological father around. The suggestion that pregnant women are more likely to be abused is a little broad in my view as it doesn’t take into account particular men and women in particular circumstances. The psychological traits of women who end up in violent relationships is also not explored.

After that fascinating – and often dark – exploration of the motives and features of IPV, Dr. Buss falls back into feminist territory by offering the suggestion put forward by Margo Wilson and Martin Daly for the reason for female IPV:

“The main motive for women, they argue, is self-defense or the protection of their children.”

This explanation conveniently makes female violence seem more understandable and sympathetic than male violence. Essentially, women commit IPV for selfless and compassionate reasons, whereas men commit violence for purely selfish and controlling reasons. Margo Wilson and Martin Daly have made some interesting contributions to our understanding of intimate violence, such as their idea of the ‘Cinderella effect’ for example, but this framing of “women’s violence as self-defence” is reflective of the ubiquitous narrative of female victimisation. Steve Stewart-Williams has pointed out that many evolutionary psychologists lean to the left politically which is my view means they tend to be more favourable towards women. I imagine many feminists must have breathed a sigh of relief when an explanation for female IPV like this one became popular so they could hold on to their worldview.

I’m not sure if David Buss has heard of Erin Pizzey (she’s not mentioned in the book), who founded the first modern women’s refuge in the 1970s, but she has stated that many of the women who came to her refuge to escape their male abusers were, in her words “as violent or in some cases more violent than the men they left.” Although Erin Pizzey has noted that there were women at her refuge who were innocent victims of violence, these cases were easier for her to deal with than the more troubled cases where violence went both ways and where most of the problems arise. For her trouble, she received death threats from feminist activists.

Similarly, the writer and former prison doctor Theodore Dalrymple has had direct experience dealing with abused women and, despite expressing sympathy for these women, claimed that many of them were “complicit” in some ways with the abuse they received. Towards the end of this interview, which is worth listening to in full, Dalrymple recalls asking an abused woman where she met her boyfriend and how much time had passed until she got into a relationship with him, to which she replied “down the pub” and “within half an hour.” He also points out that many people would be able to recognise the men who the abused women get involved with as potentially violent and dangerous, and the situation was absurd enough for the woman he was treating to “come in crying and go out laughing.” This doesn’t mean we should automatically condemn women with violence partners, but it does show that IPV cannot be simply presented as being predominantly powerful male perpetrators and powerless female victims.

David Buss cites the case of Francine Hughes as an example of “female intimate partner violence as self defence” as she was a victim of abuse by her husband James. In response, she set their bed on fire while he was sleeping in it and was acquitted on the grounds that she had “temporal insanity”:

“This true story was made into a movie, The Burning Bed, starring Farrah Fawcett as Francine. The movie, hailed as one of the ten best TV movies of all time, helped to draw attention to the pervasive problem of partner abuse and prompted more lenient sentences for women who killed their husbands in self-defense.”

I wonder if it has ever occurred to Dr. Buss, or anybody who read these lines approvingly, that this idea of “temporal insanity” would be a very useful way for women to kill their boyfriends/husbands and get away with it scot-free? James Hughes may well have been a nasty and violent man, but couldn’t Francine Hughes have simply left him and taken the kids? It would likely be argued that Francine Hughes would have been too afraid to leave in case he tried to get her back, but was burning him alive the only choice that she had?

Buss concludes the chapter by steering back towards a more balanced perspective:

“Perhaps some women use IPV for reasons parallel to those that motivate men – to keep a partner faithful, to punish suspicions or observations of infidelity, and to deter the partner from abandonment.”

Perhaps indeed.

Chapter 6: Stalking and conflict after a relationship has ended

Moving on from intimate partner violence, the book explores the issue of stalking which can occur following the break-up of a relationship.

David Buss points out that many of the features of stalking such as giving gifts and showing affection are normal parts of courtship but if such behaviours are not reciprocated than they can lead to trouble. As a crime, stalking is defined as a pattern of repeated conduct that provokes fear in a “reasonable person.”

The author even describes his own experiences of it, as he apparently received unwanted phone calls, cards and gifts from an unknown person at a university he worked for. Since he didn’t feel afraid or threatened, in the legal sense he would not be considered a victim of stalking.

Men are more likely to be prosecuted for stalking than women are. Dr. Buss notes that one reason for this is that women who experience repeated unwanted attention are more likely than men to feel fear over it. This difference could suggest that men are more likely to stalk but it could also be the case that male victims of stalking are simply less likely to report it than women. Since stalking requires persistence and risk-taking, it is possible that it is more of a male phenomenon than a female one.

According to Dr. Buss, exploring the possible evolutionary roots of stalking behaviour provides fresh insights into the psychology behind it. Stalking can take a psychological toll on victims as they may be subjected to threats of assault which a stalker may follow up on. As many stalkers can be ex-boyfriends or husbands, they may have expressed feelings of intense jealousy during the relationship reflecting what was discussed in Chapter 4. In extreme cases, stalking can lead to murder. An example given is the high profile case of OJ Simpson and the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown. Prior to her murder, Simpson had apparently stalked her and was intensely jealous during their relationship. As far as I understand though, OJ Simpson has never been confirmed as the culprit to her murder although his DNA was infamously found at the scene of the crime.

Experts of stalking have stated that threats can generate more distress than actual physical harm because the “looming vulnerability” that results from threats can cause great psychological disturbance. While I’ve never been stalked, I have some experience of dealing with threats and being vulnerable from when I worked in a mental health hospital and so can attest to this claim. Although the people I worked with were not extremely violent, some of them suffered from mood swings and could suddenly become aggressive towards others without any provocation. The harm I received was fairly minor but what was worse was not knowing when or how bad the aggression was going to be so beforehand I was often felt very tense and nervous. Therefore, I can understand in some way how victims of stalking may feel. Acts of violence from stalkers are also more likely than threats to generate a response from law enforcement which may explain why the latter causes more psychological stress.

As well as violence, stalkers may try to harm their victim’s reputation or target their friends, family members and pets. In some cases, victims of stalking may relocate or avoid socialising to deal with a stalker. I found a lot of this chapter very interesting as it explores the common psychological features of people who may engage in stalking. There are parallels with those who may commit IPV, such as having a psychological disorder or being insecure about attachment:

“According to attachment theorists, those with an insecure attachment style distrust intimates, fear rejection, and show a heavy emotional dependence on a partner. They have poor social skills and become overly clingy with romantic partners. Ironically, their fear of rejection is entirely warranted.”

Since overly attached people can become overbearing, they can inflict a “heavy relationship load” on their partners which increases the chances of the relationship ending. This rejection will obviously make the overly attached person distressed and potentially unstable. One study found that people who scored high on being insecure about attachments had a stronger proclivity to stalk. Another study showed that convicted stalkers tended to be high on the autism spectrum disorder scale which suggests that they are often poor at reading or understanding the intentions or motivations of the object of their attention. Some stalkers also have borderline or narcissistic personality disorder. These findings may explain why a lot of stalkers do not consider their behaviour to be harassing or intrusive. They believe they are just expressing interest in those they stalk and may misinterpret rejection as a test of their commitment. Other stalkers, however, may target people as a form of revenge or before attacking them – sexual predators for example.

The motives of stalkers are commonly linked to mating psychology and the most frequent of this type is the “rejected stalker”: someone who stalks their ex after their relationship has ended. Stalking behaviour might begin just before a break-up as a form of mate guarding and retention as explored in the fourth chapter. In one study, 32 percent of stalking cases were motivated by jealousy and distrust of a partner. Rejected stalkers are thought to be primarily motivated by rage and humiliation which is a way of recalibrating WTR (as explained in Chapter 4) and dealing with a decline in mate value which may affect their reputation. The rage the rejected stalker feels towards their ex may lead to the ex restarting the relationship although this is very rare.

Female victims of stalking are more likely to be young and of reproductive age and, like with IPV, more likely to be victimised by men older than them. One reason for this may be that such women are less aware of their desirability and also less experienced in relationships which may mean they form relationships with men lower in mate value than them. The men in these situations may believe that their chances of forming a new relationship are lower than their current girlfriend/wife’s:

“the stalker, being lower in mate value than his expartner, realistically perceives that it will be difficult or impossible to replace her with a mate of comparable value. “Since she loved me once,” he thinks, “perhaps I can win her back.””

Victims might receive threats of violence such as “if I can’t have you, no one can.” In addition to violence, some stalkers might also attempt suicide and self-harm to keep their partner in their life. Less extreme actions can cause distress to targets of stalking even though they appear innocuous to others, such as a stalker watching their ex from afar. All these behaviours can result in exes not forming new relationships for fear of harm coming to their new partner.

David Buss acknowledges that it would seem illogical to suggest that stalking behaviour is an evolutionary adaptation since it often has the opposite effect to what stalkers desire. However, it could succeed over countless instances across time and there are situations where it has succeeded, if only temporarily. Dr. Buss studied over two thousand stalking victims and found that 30 percent of female victims met stalkers on their request and 6 percent even had sex with them! Stalking can be successful from the stalker’s perspective as victims may devote a lot of time and energy dealing with the ramifications of such behaviour preventing them from living their life as normal. On a psychological level, stalkers “hijack…victim’s psychological space” so they can’t think about anything else. Victims engaging with stalkers in an attempt to stop their harassment can lead to stalkers controlling their victims by “rewarding” them by stopping and then stalking again to punish them.

Another form of stalking or revenge after a break-up has emerged with modern technology: revenge porn. This is where photos or videos of an ex that are erotic or pornographic can be distributed online to embarrass and provoke an ex for ending the relationship. Revenge porn can also lead to complete strangers stalking the victim. One motivation for revenge porn may be to coerce exes into resuming a relationship with the stalker or just have sex with them. Revenge porn can be particularly harmful to women as it affects their “sexual reputation” which men care more about than women for reasons already mentioned in this review.

David Buss and his colleague Joshua Duntley have developed a website to help victims of stalking which can be viewed here. He also offers tips to help victims of stalking at the end of this chapter. These include seeking support from friends and family, stopping all contact with stalkers since they find this rewarding, and documenting the stalker’s actions to increase the chance of prosecution.

Part 3 will conclude this review and deal with the often controversial subject of sexual coercion which covers sexual harassment and rape.

Book Review: ‘Bad Men: The Hidden Roots of Sexual Deception, Harassment & Assault’ by David M. Buss (Part 1)

Bad Men by David Buss | Hachette UK
2.5/5 stars

Overview: David Buss’ book is interesting, but is ultimately let down by falling into feminist thinking and talking points.

I bought this book on a whim after reading a review of it on the website Aero by William Costello. What interested me was not so much the review itself but the comments underneath it which were critical of what Mr. Costello had written and the details of the book. One of the commenters was Steve Moxon, author of the book The Woman Racket who has done his own research and studies into human sex differences that goes against the feminist narrative. The general feeling in the comments was that, despite Aero claiming to challenge conventional thinking, the book and reviewer basically upheld the status quo idea that male violence against women was widespread and society had to find ways of dealing with it.

I concurred with the comments under the article but I was intrigued enough to read the book myself and draw my own conclusions. I believe both William Costello and the book’s author, David Buss, want to be impartial and objective in this discussion but they may be too entrenched in academia to challenge the current consensus and present an alternative or opposing viewpoint. William Costello appears to be sympathetic and open-minded regarding issues affecting men but I still differ in some ways from his point of view.

David Buss is a prominent evolutionary psychologist working at the University of Texas in Austin whose career began in the 1970s and has written books such as The Evolution of Desire and The Murderer Next Door. Bad Men is the first book I’ve read by Dr. Buss which explores sexual conflict between men and women and the psychology of male perpetrators of sexual violence in particular.

For whatever reason, the book has been published under two different names as it has also been published with the title When Men Behave Badly which also has a different cover. Bad Men is the UK title.

Chapter 1: Biology and sexual conflict

David Buss begins by explaining that sexual conflict between men and women is rooted in “evolved sex differences” in sexual psychology. This is related to the distinctive gametes that men and women uniquely possess. For more information, you can read my description of Chapter 3 of The Ape That Understood the Universe. One of the most obvious differences between the sexes, to everybody except trans fanatics at least, is that women get pregnant and men do not. This means that women bear potential metabolic costs after sexual intercourse which men don’t since men can successfully reproduce just by impregnating a woman. In other words, in terms of reproduction, men are the ‘outsiders’ and women are the ‘insiders’ which means they both have advantages and disadvantages in the domain of sex and reproduction. Dr. Buss believes an “evolutionary lens” helps identify when sexual conflict may occur between men and women and says one goal of the book is to highlight circumstances that may increase or decrease its likelihood.

It is pointed out in the first chapter, titled ‘The Battle of the Sexes’, that the increasing conflict surrounding men and women has been blamed on many things from the patriarchy and toxic masculinity to feminism. David Buss even addresses the ‘manosphere’ writing:

“Manosphere bloggers… blame women who seek sex with “alpha chads” (high status males) and exploit lower-status males who are “betas” for their investment.”

I don’t know if I meet the definition of a ‘manosphere blogger’ but David Buss’ perception of the manosphere seems to focus on one area of a very large and loosely connected group(s) rather than encapsulating the whole of it. The issue of hypergamy, which Dr. Buss is basically referring to, is more of an interest of certain groups of men who arguably make up the manosphere, such as incels but not only them, whilst other so-called manosphere bloggers may be focussed on issues such as family court bias or misandry in general. David Buss does acknowledge that women are attracted to men with high power and status but writes:

“Missing from these manosphere accounts, however, is that women’s mate preferences are enormously complex and include qualities such as honesty, intelligence, dependability, moral character, sense of humor, and many more.”

Again though, other figures in the manosphere may agree with this statement and be more interested in other topics relating to men.

The author also considers the feminist idea of patriarchy as the source of conflict between the sexes but argues against it by stating, in his opinion, that both sides – that is, feminists and the manosphere – fail to recognise biology and how it relates to the modern world. David Buss essentially argues for a ‘centre ground’ as a way to understand male-female sexual conflict. However, this isn’t entirely true as many of the individuals who have influenced my thinking and consider themselves part of the manosphere have read about evolutionary psychology themselves.

Likewise, in his attempt to strike a balance between feminism and the manosphere, Dr. Buss states:

“Patriarchal institutions such as laws that give husbands control over their spouses’ sexuality for example are still on the books in some countries and have lingering pernicious effects in others.”

This is clearly to appease any feminists who could be reading and might be troubled by his accusing them of denying biology. The problem here though is that Dr. Buss states a feminist position but doesn’t give any alternative theories why such institutions and laws exist other than an apparent male desire to control women. Unlike the arguments by bloggers in the manosphere, this is presented as self-evident and something that does not require further scrutiny. Undoubtedly, men in some countries may use particular laws as a means to oppress women, but the motivations behind ‘patriarchal’ laws, in Western countries at least, are partly to deal with the aforementioned fact that men are the outsiders of reproduction and their role in their children’s lives can be diminished if these laws are altered without thinking about this. These feminist-influenced statements are a recurring feature of the book so I’ll explore this a little more later.

Here the book takes a more interesting detour into sexual conflict in other species, for example, spiders of the family Pisaura mirabilis and how they interact during courtships. Typically, the male engages in the arduous task of capturing an insect and offering it as a gift to the female to initiate mating. This isn’t always straightforward, however, as a number of scenarios can occur such as the female taking the gift and leaving without mating with the male or the male wrapping something worthless in silk and mating with the female while she unwraps the gift.

I found this description darkly amusing in a way and we can probably think of human examples that are not dissimilar! Other examples of sexual conflict amongst insects in particular include water striders of which the males have penile spines which can damage the female’s reproductive tract. Another more well known example is the female black widow spider which can consume the male after mating.

Buss then writes about men and women being in a ‘sexual conflict co-evolution’ whereby one sex develops a tactic to exploit the other sex resulting in the latter developing an evolved tactic to avoid the exploitation. This is compared to predators like cheetahs evolving tactics to capture prey like gazelles which, in turn, evolved a response against it – i.e. both use speed, habitat, vigilance, etc. to prey on or avoid being preyed on by the other. In terms of men and women, Dr. Buss writes:

“adaptations in women to avoid subpar males or to require extensive courtship displays before consenting to sex have created selection pressures on men to circumvent these barriers. Defensive adaptations to deflect sexual advances are countered by sexual persistence adaptations.”

One problem I have with this argument is how closely this falls into the now standard narrative of ‘female victims’ and ‘male perpetrators’. Using the predator-prey analogy makes this more likely and discourages interpreting sexual conflict in other ways. We could just as well interpret the ‘battle of the sexes’ as a form of ‘one-upmanship’ in which each sex simultaneously takes advantage and is taken advantage of. The previous example of the male and female Mirabilis spider illustrates this idea more than the cheetah vs. gazelle one.

A notable ‘battleground’ where sexual conflict can arise is the differing sex drives between men and women. As women’s sex drive is generally lower than men’s, ‘female choosiness’ comes into play which inevitably creates tension, misunderstanding and potentially violence. The often cited statistics about online dating sites are presented which show that most men rate most women as attractive whereas women rate only around 20% of men as attractive. One reason for female choosiness is of course because women face costlier consequences if they have sex and become pregnant. The author notes that men and women tend to differ in how soon after meeting they desire to have sex, with men desiring it earlier than women:

“1 scientist analogized this to having 2 pairs of hands on the same steering wheel of a car, each having a somewhat different destination, each trying to turn the wheel towards its own destination but being forced to contend with pulls from the other.”

To manage these biological realities, many civilisations have found unique ways to order relations between the sexes. The book describes how men in the Tiwi tribe, a group from an island near Australia, use women and girls like currency by bestowing them to other men at birth. When the girls reach adolescence, they move in with their bestowed husband. Men who are given women as brides can reciprocate by offering their own daughters in return. If this sounds highly demeaning and exploitative towards women, it’s worth noting that this system results in a lot of young men without any women whilst a small group of older men have three or four. Also, many of the younger women can become widows when their older husband dies and may have a say in their next husband. Not surprisingly, there is also infidelity between young brides and younger men and the tribe have found their own ways to manage this. Although this is an extreme example, it shows that women are often a resource that men compete for.

Regardless of men’s desire for more sex and with more partners than women, men also face costs which can lead to sexual conflict. The most obvious is that they could be a victim of ‘paternity fraud’ – i.e. a man can unknowingly acknowledge and raise a child that isn’t actually his own. This is not only costly in terms of mating opportunities, but also in time, resources and possibly psychological damage. This can lead to ‘sexual jealousy’ in which men are suspicious about women’s sexual activity and proximity to other men. To manage this, men may engage in ‘mate guarding’ by monitoring women’s activity and location. The book describes an app available in Saudi Arabia called Absher whereby men can track their wives’ movements! It is also noted that this suspicion from men hasn’t altered even though many women use contraceptive pills to prevent getting pregnant.

The restrictive practices towards women in countries like Saudi Arabia is contrasted here with a tribe in Brazil called Yanomamo in which men spend a lot of time away from their wives hunting for big game. This means that women have more influence to make decisions as they are not ‘guarded’ by their husbands. This is interesting considering that this kind of arrangement is more or less identical to traditional hunter-gatherer societies or, more recently, the traditional gender roles of men going out to work and women staying at home. We are often told that women were oppressed in this situation but if women’s husbands were away at work most of the time, doesn’t this mean women had the same freedoms as Dr. Buss argues Yanomamo women have? We could draw two conclusions from this: either, feminism falsely portrayed women staying at home as oppressed or, feminism naturally developed from this environment, particularly as technological advances reduced women’s dependency on men for resources. I actually think both are true even though they appear contradictory.

Other sources of conflict include men’s superior size and strength, the proximity of friends and family or ‘allies’ and the choice of potential partners available to either sex. In addition, individual differences can determine the likelihood and severity of sexual conflict occurring. For example, people who score highly on the so-called ‘dark triad’ traits of psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism are said to be more likely to be sexual exploitative. I’ll explore this in a little bit
more detail later.

Given the topic of this book, most of the exploration of sexual conflict focusses on male perpetrators and female victims but, to his credit, Dr. Buss states:

“Can women be sexual predators? Our research on the Dark Triad suggests yes, but in somewhat different ways. Women who score high in Dark Triad traits are more likely to engage in mate poaching, luring men away from existing relationships for sexual encounters. High scoring women are also more likely to use sex as a tactic for getting ahead in the workplace.”

Chapter 2: Attraction, Dating and Mating

In the second chapter: ‘The Mating Market’, David Buss argues that conflict arises between the two sexes due to them pursuing different mating strategies. In addition to men having a higher sex drive, they also have a greater desire for sexual variety. This has been shown not only across cultures, but in homosexual men as well (see Chapter 3 link for more details).

According to the book, men also overestimate their attractiveness in the mating market and have higher self-esteem than women. Men also appear to have a ‘sexual over-perception bias’ in which they perceive sexual interest in a woman that is not actually there. Men might also underestimate how upsetting their actions are towards women. In my view, I can’t help thinking that men simply assume women are as attracted to them as vice versa. However, in the event of a low risk casual encounter, men may lower their standards. It is pointed out that both men and women attempt to secure a partner on dating sites who is 25% more desirable than them.

What explains this behaviour? One explanation is female choosiness. Here the author writes:

“‘Men are one long breeding experiment run by women’ according to some evolutionary anthropologists. Men have evolved to be fiercely motivated to acquire the resources and status women desire in a mate and to embody the qualities women want, such as kindness, dependability and physical fitness.”

Note that survival is also an effective motivator for acquiring resources and status as well as the traits mentioned if only to work in a group or evade conflicts. Women could simply be more receptive to traits that would aid survival, which is something both sexes desire. In other words, men’s motivations for obtaining status and resources might not just be motivated by female approval.

Much like the spiders described in the first chapter, both sexes try to find short-cuts to attract the opposite sex. Men may deceive by posing next to expensive cars, wearing expensive items of clothing, or even posing with attractive women in order to impress other women. Women may deceive by ‘catfishing’ whereby fake photos of an attractive woman are presented on a dating site and then used to fraud the victim in some way. Indeed, Dr. Buss writes:

“Neither sex has a monopoly on deception. One study found that an astonishing 81 percent of online dating profiles contained at least one lie about a verifiable characteristic such as age, height or weight.”

The book veers into more feminist-tinged territory with the idea that men are particularly attracted to women deemed to be ‘exploitable’, reflecting that perpetrators will target people they consider to be more vulnerable. This is true not just for sexual assault but for many crimes. Traits that favour exploitability include low intelligence and being younger. Evidence of this purportedly comes from men perceiving women who are intelligent as attractive in a long-term relationship but not in a more short-term scenario.

I don’t entirely agree with this argument about intelligence and exploitation as it is possible for somebody to be intelligent but also naïve and suggestable – especially younger people. While it’s true that more intelligent people will be better equipped mentally to avoid being taken advantage of or manipulated, a young, educated woman from a protected, privileged background may be less prepared to deal with certain kinds of men than a less educated, less intelligent woman from a poorer background who may have experience of predatory, exploitative men. This is the difference between a woman who is ‘booksmart’ and a woman who is ‘streetsmart’.

Alcohol consumption is another way in which women can be vulnerable; it is easier for them to get drunk as they have less of the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase than men. It is not pointed out in the book, however, that people individually, and regardless of sex, can differ in how much alcohol they can consume before becoming drunk as some men can be classed as ‘lightweights’ and so can equally be exploited. Here again, the book presents women as poor, helpless victims and men as potential predators and perpetrators. Dr. Buss writes:

“Because alcohol stimulates bonding endorphins, women are more likely to misread interactions and relationships with men when intoxicated. They overestimate the likelihood of an emotional bond and a long-term relationship – what Dr. Andy Thomson calls the Prosecco perception bias.”

Since alcohol affects our judgement and increases our impulsivity, which would favour short-term desires over long-term ones, I’m not entirely sure how accurate that statement is, but it’s perhaps not a good idea for women, or anyone, to believe that they’ll make sound decisions whilst drunk. A good piece of advice to women would be to watch how much they are drinking so they are less likely to find themselves in unfortunate situations. This may nowadays be misconstrued as victim blaming.

David Buss continues the ‘female victim, male perpetrators’ perception by describing male college students drinking as “high testosterone, alcohol-fueled men” as if they are big bad wolves preying on Little Red Riding Hoods. But if young college women were so vulnerable and afraid of their male peers, they would never go out at all.

In reality, women can take advantage of sexually aroused men just as some men may take advantage of women. The author concedes this, noting that women can benefit from short-term mating via access to resources, but describes them as “exploiting the exploiters” as if such women are simply retaliating towards male offenders.

Indicative of what could be called ‘feminist thinking’, Dr. Buss writes:

“Women’s manner of dress does not excuse men legally or morally from being guilty of sexual exploitation, although historically it has been misused by defense lawyers for this purpose.”

But this depends on what we would define as ‘sexual exploitation’, such as if a man and a woman had mutually consented to sex or not. A woman who dresses a certain way, particularly on a night out, is inviting certain attention from the opposite sex even if she may not consciously intend to do so. If she is sexually assaulted, it doesn’t mean that she ‘deserves’ to be, but dressing in certain ways will generate responses she may or may not want. Is it wrong to expect women to have some responsibility over this?

The book turns to the more interesting topic of women’s attraction to men high on the aforementioned ‘Dark Triad’ traits (psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism) which is called the ‘bad boy paradox’. This is apparently evident in dating profiles as such men are rated higher by women than men lacking in these traits. One explanation for this is that Dark Triad men are often charming and confident which conveys high mate value. This makes sense as this is what women find attractive in men in general. These traits would have also benefitted men in surviving our more chaotic and unstable ancestral past. Women who mated with such men may have passed these traits on and had ‘sexy sons’ who passed them on as well. However the author notes:

“The hypothesis would have to pass a high empirical hurdle, because these reproductive benefits would have to outweigh the costs that women vulnerable to high-level Dark Triad men are known to suffer.”

The phenomenon and the possible explanation behind it make sense to me, but I still have issues with how personality traits like the Dark Triad are ‘measured’ by psychologists, since they appear to be based on a subjective assessment. It is hard to imagine people high in psychopathy, narcissism or Machiavellianism being willing and able to give an accurate evaluation of themselves, in much the same way that it would be hard for a compulsive liar to admit they are a compulsive liar. It wouldn’t be surprising, after all, if compulsive liars were high on the Dark Triad traits! I doubt a genuine psychopath, if asked if he was psychopathic, would reply: “Why, yes. Yes I am” although this of course is an extreme example.

In this section, some of the statements used as measurements of the Dark Triad traits, which people are asked how much they agree with, are presented. Nevertheless, a lot of these statements are, in my opinion, hints of the traits at best.

For psychopathy, the statements presented include: ‘payback needs to be quick and nasty’, ‘people who mess with me always regret it’ and ‘I like to pick on losers.’ Whilst these statements correlate with psychopathy, I think you could agree with these without necessarily having psychopathic traits. For me, the closest example to a psychopathic mindset given is ‘I’ll say anything to get what I want’.

Similarly, statements measuring narcissism include: ‘I like to be the centre of attention’ and ‘I know that I’m special because everyone keeps telling me so’. While these are certainly how a narcissist might think, I don’t know if a genuine narcissist would be so self-aware, or so honest and self-critical, to agree with them. For Machiavellianism, statements provided include: ‘It’s wise to keep track of information that you can use against people later’ and ‘make sure you plan benefits you, not others’ which might hint at the trait but, to me, needs to be more specific to be an accurate assessment.

Chapter 3: Trouble in paradise

In Chapter 3, the book delves into the conflicts that can arise after a relationship has been established. Any long-term relationship inevitably has its struggles and conflicts as couples have to live together and face life’s trials and tribulations.

In the case of sexual conflict, one problem that can present itself is the changing desirability or ‘mate value’ of one partner relative to the other as nothing remains static. As people grow older, they may become less attractive to their partner and face competition from younger suitors. Situations can also change and make one partner more attractive and, crucially, more attractive to others. The case of Dorothy Stratten, for example, highlights what can happen when someone’s mate value increased to the detriment of their partner. She became an actress and left her husband Paul Snider for the director Peter Bogdanovich in a classic case of ‘trading up’. In response, Snider murdered her and then killed himself.

According to the book though, even stable and committed relationships can cultivate people who act as ‘back-up mates’ in case the relationship turns sour or suddenly ends due to death or other circumstances. These back-up mates can turn into affairs and Dr. Buss notes that men and women may pursue affairs for differing reasons. As already stated, men may pursue an affair or affairs to satisfy their desire for sexual variety whereas women may have an affair to obtain a ‘better’ partner. David Buss writes:

“women are more likely to cite emotional involvement as a reason for the affair. Men are more likely to cite pure sexual pleasure.”

It is also claimed that women are more likely than men to fall in love with the person they are having an affair with. While it is not stated in this book, this is basically the principle that ‘women want love and men want sex’ which is a conclusion that a lot of people come to. In my opinion, this is a flawed assumption. The reason I believe this is because of the declining marriage and birth rates that have accompanied ‘women’s liberation’. Additionally, there has been a rise in births outside of marriage and the growth of areas described in one report as ‘men deserts’ in many towns and cities.

This is in no way to say that these developments are all women’s fault, but if most women naturally desired long-term relationships, wouldn’t giving women ‘more control over their bodies’ result in them choosing men who also wanted long-term relationships? Also, why did societies in the past stigmatise women who had children outside of marriage or without a father around? The feminist answer would be because of ‘patriarchal oppression of women’ but the plausible answer would be that without these stigmas, some women would have chosen to have sex and get pregnant without thinking of the consequences. These women are now usually provided welfare in place of a husband meaning they are, effectively, ‘married to the state.’ It is likely there were women in these circumstances who didn’t deserve to be shunned, but these attitudes must have emerged for a reason.

To be clear, I don’t believe men in these situations were always innocent and blameless. It is important to point out that men who impregnated and abandoned women were stigmatised as well so this is not about ‘female victim blaming’ or misogyny.

According to Michelle Langley in her book Why Women Cheat, although women claim they want an emotionally involved man, they may in fact pursue men who are not interested in them, at least not in the romantic sense, as this creates tension and excitement which may link with women’s attraction to ‘bad boys’. In contrast, a man who openly shows his love for a woman may appear needy and too dependent on them. Obviously, many women also desire love and commitment from men but this shows that, in both sexes, there is often a disconnect between our sexual desires and our romantic ones. The author does point out though that women who have affairs may also score high on the Dark Triad traits.

Returning to the book, Dr. Buss writes that humans have evolved strategies to switch mates if needed in response to environmental changes:

“we come from a long and unbroken line of ancestors who went through mating crises – ancestors who monitored mate value, tracked satisfaction with their current unions, cultivated backups, appraised alternatives, and switched mates when conditions proved propitious.”

Mate value can be thought of as a balance between the value one person places on themselves and the value they place on their partner. This is called a ‘welfare trade-off ratio’ or WTR. If WTR is balanced then the relationship is likely to be stable and healthy as neither person is self-centred nor entirely dependent on the other person. In long-term relationships, mate value may change suddenly or regularly fluctuate. An example given is women’s ovulation cycle which may make them more attractive due to physical changes like a lower waist-to-hip ratio.

The so-called ‘double standard’ in attitudes towards sexual infidelity might also be a source of conflict. Generally, people consider women cheating on a man as worse than a man cheating on a woman which some women consider to be wrong. The author states this is partly due to men’s desire for sexual variety but does not mention that another reason is that men reasonably fear paternity fraud if they discover their wives have cheated on them with another man although he mentions this earlier in the book. There is also a ‘me versus thee’ double standard in that people tend to judge their partner kissing, performing a sex act or having sex with someone else more harshly than they would if they did it.

The final source of conflict covered in this chapter is sexual withdrawal which is usually thought of as done by women as a way to control men. This is true, but Dr. Buss points out that men can also do this to women. Many cultures expect there to be sexual relations in marriages so one person denying their other half sex, or having sex with somebody else, is obviously considered to be wrong. Historically, adultery committed by women was considered a ‘property violation’ of one man against another which suggests to some that this was a form of patriarchal oppression of women. David Buss falls back into feminist thinking when he writes:

“the male sexual psychology that gave rise to the laws to begin with – specifically male sexual proprietariness – continues to be fully activated within committed relationships. Cultural
shifts towards greater gender equality within relationships have dramatically reduced men’s entitlements. Western marriage no longer grants men unconstrained sexual access whenever and wherever they want. Women within committed relationships have the rights and freedoms to consent to sex or to withdraw sex. And this gives women a critical lever of power – the power to reward and the power to punish.”

This implies men created such laws as a kind of ‘ego trip’ to exert power over women rather than to deal with many of the conflicts David Buss described in this chapter. Since men are the outsiders of reproduction, their relationship with their children can be threatened if women are not honest about their sexual discretions, and many men would assume that their wives want to have sex with them and would, understandably, be suspicious if they didn’t – over the long-term at least. Withdrawing sex may allow women to get what they want but this can also create resentment as the man might emotionally withdraw. As already mentioned, men can also withdraw sex which can lead to women fearing the relationship is falling apart or there’s another woman involved.

Underlying many of these relationship conflicts is feelings of jealousy which is explored in the next chapter.

To be continued…

MMM#10: All You Have Is Now

All of the self-help type stuff I’ve written on this blog is as much for my own sake as anybody who chooses to read it. I’ve always been obsessed with self-improvement and productivity even though I’ve often failed at both of these things. At the end of last year, I set myself some targets to accomplish during this year such as posting at least twice a month and writing at least five book reviews. Even though it’s only the first month of the year as I write this, I feel like I may not be able to achieve most or all of these targets! This is one of the problems with planning for the future as it’s hard to tell what will happen when the future becomes the present.

It we consider the years 2024 or 2025, which are only a couple of years in the future (thus dating this post fairly quickly), it can seem like they are filled with endless potential and possibilities. When they come around though the same issues that face us in the present will emerge and whatever thoughts and plans we had about it will become limited. It’s true that a lot can change by then, but we still have the then-present to contend with.

The psychologist Jordan Peterson has developed a self-authoring program which allows people to plan out their life in the future as well as write about the past and present. This program has apparently helped many people to achieve their goals and reduce anxiety. There’s nothing wrong with planning for the future but there may be drawbacks to this approach too. You could potentially set yourself up for a fall by setting targets for a later date because you don’t know what may happen to you between now and that later point. It’s also possible that you frustrate yourself if you don’t manage to achieve the goals you set for yourself. You also don’t know what your situation may be in the near future as your mood can change depending on the circumstances.

Depending on your temperament, you might worry more about the future than other people and become fixated on accomplishing something by a certain date at the expense of other things. If you fail, then your worries were for nothing.

Since we only live in the present, it’s important that we focus on what we’re doing now as well as paying attention to what we hope to do in the future. Why waste time worrying about what you haven’t done or had wanted to do if nothing comes of it anyway? Could whatever you happen to be doing right now be done better? While focussing too much on the present could lead to short term thinking and instant gratification, I think if you look at what you’re doing now as well as look at what you’ve achieved and what you hope to achieve, you can maintain your productivity. In short, you should try to look at the past, present and future but remember that you only live in the present.

I’m still going to try and achieve the goals I set for myself, but will also try to focus on the present and not dwell on the future too much since the future will turn into the present very soon.

MMM#9: Patriarchy Under the Knife

A recent study appeared in the news which claimed that women were more likely to die when operated on by men than by women whilst there appeared to be no differences when either men and women were operated on by women. The study, conducted by the University of Toronto in Canada, analysed data from 1.3 million patients and found that women were a third more likely to die when operated on by a male surgeon.

This reminded me of a similar news story that appeared a while ago about a study that suggested that patients in general were more likely to die during operations carried out by men rather than women. The conclusion drawn from this earlier study was that women were better surgeons than men and it was necessary to increase their numbers in light of this. As you might imagine, there were a number of triumphant response articles written by feminists either highlighting female superiority or bemoaning the gender imbalance in this area of medicine. Feminists will accept sex differences if it suits their narrative to do so.

The reaction to this recent news has generated a similar response. Researchers from the study itself even suggested that male surgeons might “act on subconscious, deeply ingrained biases, stereotypes and attitudes” as well as suggesting that men and women’s differences in communication style might also have an effect. It was also suggested that the solution to this apparent issue was to train more female surgeons so that the gender imbalance in surgery would end and there would be fewer female deaths.

Presumably, the idea that there might be ways to improve male surgeons’ performances to decrease the number of deaths, if this is indeed an issue, was never contemplated since this wouldn’t fix the male dominance in surgery. This was because the issue the media – and, it seems, some of the researchers themselves – were primarily concerned about was not the safety of patients during operations, but the idea of ingrained sexism in the medical profession.

Hannah Fearn, writing in the i newspaper, argues that the reason behind this disparity is because women have a constant awareness and fear of male power and authority:

“Every interaction between a man and woman in our society is coloured by this imbalance – and the relationship between male surgeon and female patient is the most extreme of these scenarios.”

Hannah Fearn

Earlier in the article, she also claims:

“Medical misogyny is already well documented in Western societies. In the UK, the “belief” barrier that many women need to hurdle before female pain is taken seriously inside the NHS is staggeringly high.”

Hannah Fearn

If this quote is to be believed, it would appear that the NHS is ignorant of women’s healthcare needs due to being too male-dominated. This is despite the fact that this recent government mandate to improve the NHS states it will improve outcomes for major diseases (page 20) by providing screening for cancers like breast and cervical which predominantly/exclusively affect women without listing any male-specific types like prostate or testicular. Similarly, the mandate states it will reduce maternal mortality and support women in senior leadership roles, alongside those who are black, Asian, etc. (pages 20-21).

It would be interesting if the Toronto study had found the opposite result of more male patients dying when operated on by women than men. I can imagine in this scenario either the news being buried or explained away as something like men making poorer health choices.

Alternatively, Tom Utley, writing in the Daily Mail, expresses scepticism to some of the conclusions drawn from this study in an article describing how statistics in general can be misleading and used to make any point you want to make. Whilst conceding that women may be better at communicating than men – I have my own thoughts about that, but I’ll leave that for another day – Mr. Utley writes:

“a far more plausible explanation is that the most experienced consultant surgeons – those entrusted with the most dangerous and life-threatening cases – are chiefly men. In fact, in Britain 86 per cent of consultant surgeons are male. Meanwhile women, who for all sorts of reasons (mostly to do with child-rearing) tend to be less experienced with the scalpel, are generally left to concentrate on the simpler operations. So it’s no wonder if male surgeons have a lower success rate.”

Tom Utley

While admitting to not knowing why there was no difference in male patients, Tom Utley argued that there were other factors to consider before we could conclude that women were better surgeons than men. I’m inclined to agree with him. One possible factor is the different life expectancies of men and women. Since women tend to live longer than men, there is a greater chance that patients of an advanced age that are operated on are predominantly women. Since older people are more likely to die during an operation than younger people, this may be why women are more likely to die during surgery. It’s also likely that men are the majority of surgeons who operate on elderly patients. It would be ironic if this was the primary explanation!

While I don’t think this study was conducted with the aim to challenge the so-called patriarchal field of medicine, any mismatch between the sexes which may affect women is inevitably jumped on as being down to men and society as a whole not taking women seriously even though the opposite is usually true.

Whatever the truth behind the study, it made me think about this Weird Al Yankovic song which parodied a well known Madonna hit and made it about a hapless, incompetent surgeon which is probably what feminists think the medical profession is like.

MMM#8: Looking Back and Looking Ahead

As another year flies by, it’s common for people to reflect on what they have done over the past 12 months and ponder what they plan to do in the coming year. These plans usually get derailed and abandoned pretty quickly but I think it’s still a good thing to do if only to see how you have progressed over that period of time.

In tribute to Vention MGTOW, who died this year, I’m going to do what he once did and look back on what I’ve done this year with this blog and my plans for the future.

Overall, I’m pleased with what I’ve done with the blog in 2021 as I’ve got to grips with some of the features on the site to make it more accessible and presentable. Hopefully I can improve on this next year. In the first year of this blog, I struggled to write posts but this year I’ve gradually found ways to produce content on a semi-regular basis.

Although this year seems to have gone by fairly quickly, it does seem a long time since I wrote about the George Floyd incident and the rise of Black Lives Matter back in January. Since then I have made a video, written a book review and began writing shorter posts so I can update my blog at least twice a month.

My hope next year is to build on what I’ve done during 2021. While you should never make promises you can’t keep, here are some of the things I’m hoping to achieve by the end of 2022. If I can remember, I may write a post in 12 months’ time analysing how well I did:

Regular posts

Since I started this blog in 2019, I’ve had several periods where months have passed and I haven’t posted anything. My target next year is to post at least twice every month. Some months may be more productive than others but hopefully whatever content I post will be of interest to whoever stumbles upon it.

More book reviews

I’m quite pleased with how my review of The Ape That Understood the Universe turned out even though it was a lot longer than I planned. I split it into three parts to avoid giving the reader a large dump of text to slog through assuming they stuck with it.

I have a few books I want to read and write about and I’ve nearly finished writing a review of one of them. My target next year is to read and review at least five books. I’ve finished one book and I’m currently reading another so I may be able to achieve this. At most these should be in three parts but I’m trying to limit the length of them. I know I don’t have to outline in detail the entire book!

More videos (eventually)

I spent a lot of the early part of this year making a video which I posted onto YouTube where I read out my post about Laura Bates’ book Men Who Hate Women. For my efforts, I’ve received two dislikes (before YouTube took away that option)! I’m not too bothered about that because it was just an experiment in video making.

Like this blog, I don’t have a clear plan what I want to do with video content but it’s something I’m interested in doing. My target next year is to make at least two videos although I’m not sure what the content of those videos will be. It may be into the latter part of 2022 before I can achieve this given how long it took me to make the first one.

And other things

As well as writing about men’s issues and politics, I want to write about other things that interest me like TV and film. Some of this will be related to men and politics, but may be more general as well. I still want what I’ve done so far to be the main focus of this blog though.

A bigger audience?

Blogs aren’t exactly the most popular medium to spread ideas or information on the internet so I never expected to have an audience. At the moment, I know one person who reads my blog (a big thanks to femgoggles whose blog can be viewed here) but I’m interested in increasing that next year. If I can get another person reading I’ll have doubled my audience! I’m not too concerned as I enjoy what I’m been doing but it would be nice to get some more people interested. I could have made more of an effort by using social media but I’m trying to limit how often I go on sites like Twitter.


Book of the year: it’s the only book I wrote about this year so it’s Steve Stewart-Williams’ The Ape That Understood the Universe. I disagreed with some of the author’s viewpoints but I think he wants to be objective and open-minded. Overall I liked it and found it informative.

Post of the year: Thoughts on ‘Toxic Femininity’– one of the reasons I started this blog was to express my thoughts about certain topics that I didn’t think were commonly expressed elsewhere. I don’t claim to be a brilliant or original thinker but I figured that some of the things that I’ve written may chime with what other people have thought about.

In this particular post, I wrote about my disagreements with Freya India Ager’s Aero article ‘Social Justice Culture and Toxic Femininity’ which was widely circulated and discussed. I found the article because of femgoggles and he later linked to my post which I appreciated.

Reader of the year: despite some stiff competition it’s femgoggles!

I’ll end this post and this year by reposting some of the video links that appeared on my blog. Have a happy new year.

  • My YouTube video – a little basic but it is what it is.
  • Vention MGTOW’s summary of 2018: from ‘RIP Vention MGTOW’ – this video was my favourite of Vention’s and inspired this post in a way. From the beginning of 2019 and shortly before his cancer diagnosis, Vention talks about keeping a journal and doing summary of 2018 along with other aspects of his life.
  • Mitchell and Webb sketch about Jesus telling his followers the story of the Good Samaritan – from ‘Thoughts on ‘Toxic Femininity”. Jesus’ emphasis on the goodness of the Samaritan as a ‘weird curiosity’ makes me think of the way people talk about ‘healthy masculinity’
  • Two videos by ‘The Glass Blind Spot’ – the first is his video about the gobby feminist MP Jess Phillips in my post about anonymity and the tragic death of David Amess and the second is about how Doctor Who was infiltrated by SJWs from ‘Who’d be a male role model?’
  • Song from South Park about safe spaces – it’s a few years old now but is still relevant today – from ‘To be anonymous or not to be anonymous?’

MMM#7: The Day Shall Come

Looking back on this year, one event that happened to me in the summer sticks out more than any other: I was almost made redundant as I was told that the department I had been working in for a few years was closing down and me and my co-workers would have to compete for other jobs in the building. I managed to get a role in another department as did most of my colleagues but some other people I had worked with and known for a while decided to leave. The news completely shocked us at the time and for a little while I was having to consider finding another job. During the Covid-19 lockdowns, I was fortunate that I could still go in to work and not have
to wear a facemask all day so I had a false sense of security about my job and could not imagine this bombshell hitting me.

It got me thinking about how we are often complacent about the stability and constancy of our lives and also how we assume we are in complete control of our circumstances. I was briefly stripped of that complacency when I discovered that a decision made by people I’ve never met completely upended my life for a couple of months and I didn’t realise that I was so vulnerable.

Of course, a risk of redundancy is nothing compared to other sudden and unexpected news that people are forced to deal with. Unless you’ve experienced it, it’s difficult to imagine how you would react if you were told you had a terminal illness or if a friend or family member died without any warning beforehand.

Of the job vacancies that were available, I ended up getting the one nobody really wanted and so effectively drew the short straw. At the time, I was understandably a little annoyed that I ended up where I had but it was wisely pointed out to me by others that it didn’t have to be forever and I could eventually find somewhere else to go.

I thought about these lines from Bob Dylan’s famous song The Times They Are A-Changin’:

The line it is drawn, the curse it is cast
The slow one now will later be fast
As the present now will later be past

In other words, fortunes and circumstances change and my unhappiness would not last forever if I just got on with it and was proactive. Fortunately, it turned out my new job was nowhere near as bad as I thought it was going to be and at the moment I’m satisfied with where I am so my initial grumblings were completely unnecessary. This shows that we can experience unexpected good outcomes as well as bad ones. It would still surprise me though if I knew at the beginning of this year where I’d be at the end of it.

Similar to the idea I put forward in another post about comfort being a false god, we should be wary about being too complacent and assume our contentment will last forever. Another mantra of sorts I came up with during this period is ‘the day shall come’. This basically means that there will be a day at some point in the future that will completely change your life in some way, maybe only temporary, maybe permanently, and likely in such a way that you didn’t expect. This can sound ominous and unnerving as it suggests that there will always be bad news around the corner but it could be that things suddenly improve when you are suffering and in a dark place. Thinking about this can help you prepare for possible bad times to come but may also reassure you that the bad times won’t last forever.

Overall, what happened to me was only a minor occurrence even though I didn’t expect it but there will be tougher times that I’ll have to deal with some day. In some ways, I’ve returned to the complacency I had before all of this happened but at least I had the experience to remind me to expect the unexpected.

The day shall come. Watch out for it.

MMM#6: Who’d be a male role model?

Despite my more recent posts, I’ve tried not to respond too much to current events partly because news moves on very quickly and often by the time I’ve written about something, it’s no longer prominent in people’s minds. Inevitably, a hot topic of one week or month will disappear soon afterwards and anybody who discusses it after some time has passed will find there’s a very limited audience for it.

However, I couldn’t resist writing about the controversy over the comments made by the MP Nick Fletcher during a discussion inspired by the recent International Men’s Day. Nick Fletcher pointed out the trend in recent years of notable male characters in films and TV shows such as Doctor Who, Star Wars and Ghostbusters being replaced by women which, in his opinion, left men with only characters like Tommy Shelby from the show Peaky Blinders. Since Tommy Shelby is a criminal figure compared to the more universally good characters like Luke Skywalker, Mr. Fletcher believed men and boys were being exposed to largely negative role models rather than positive ones which he felt influenced them to commit crimes. As you might imagine, this prompted a hostile response in the usual places.

Most of the attention was directed towards the MP’s comments about Doctor Who since this is the most prominent role that was mentioned whereby a woman had taken on a traditionally male character as opposed to replacing an existing male character with a new ’empowered’ female one. The headlines that followed Nick Fletcher’s comments suggested he had said a woman playing the Doctor in Doctor Who had led to young men committing crimes resulting in him releasing a statement clarifying his points. The fact that Mr. Fletcher also made comments that ticked the politically correct boxes such as that it was a “wonderful thing that girls’ football is on TV, it’s terrific that female tennis stars are starting to be paid as much as their male counterparts” wasn’t enough to spare him from the vitriol that he received.

Ever since the actress Jodie Whittaker took on the lead role in Doctor Who, there has been tension amongst fans of the show over its direction and the writers’ insistence on presenting politically correct storylines and content. There was an understandable feeling that a male (albeit alien) character that a lot of people had looked up to for years was being replaced by a female to satisfy certain people’s political agenda. It’s also possible that the decision to present a female Doctor was a way to boost declining viewing figures as there’s only so many times you can watch the Doctor encounter and defeat Daleks and Cybermen. Nevertheless, I’d stopped watching Doctor Who long before Jodie Whittaker got the part so I wasn’t too bothered at the time when she was announced as the new incarnation of the Doctor. I was never as into the show as much as other people were maybe because, growing up, it had disappeared from TV and I was in my early teens when it was revived so I didn’t have the same nostalgia for it. One day I might check out the original series though. However, I’d recommend watching The Glass Blind Spot’s video here in which he investigates the background behind the casting of a female Doctor.

The replacement or marginalisation of male characters in place of female ones is obviously not restricted to shows like Doctor Who as it can be seen in other established franchises like the already mentioned Star Wars as well as James Bond and Mad Max. James Bond seems to be particularly despised by feminists and SJWs because he is not only a male lead character but a rather masculine one as well which is why he has been gradually neutered in the Daniel Craig films.

I’ve always been fascinated by popular culture and its impact and influence on society so the discussion this news prompted drew my attention. A book I’ve mentioned before called Spreading Misandry explores, amongst other things, how men have been portrayed in popular culture in films and TV shows and I hope to write about it more in the future. The book’s authors, Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, argue – in both this book and their other books about misandry – that men need to have a role in society that has three key components:

  1. It is distinct
  2. It is necessary
  3. It is publicly valued.

Mr. Fletcher in his speech argued that phrases like toxic masculinity vilified men and made them feel worthless which, on top of presenting men and women as interchangeable and disappearing portrayals of positive male figures in the media, shows that societies are not fulfilling these requirements.

One argument against the supposed lack of male role models in society that has being put forward by many people is the reverence that Marcus Rashford, Gareth Southgate and the England football team as a whole have received for their conduct and performance during Euro 2020 and in their political campaigning. While they all may be perfectly nice men, they have been lavished with praise partly because they’ve ‘toed the woke line’, so to speak, on issues such as ‘taking the knee’ for alleged racial injustices. If Gareth Southgate, or any of the England players, came out and said something like ‘toxic masculinity is a stupid phrase’ or ‘Black Lives Matter are an extremist organisation’ then the admiration and goodwill the media has given them would disappear very quickly.

Like many of us, Nick Fletcher was guilty of presenting a valid point in an unclear and clumsy fashion which allowed people to attack or deliberately misunderstand his point of view. Finding characters like Tommy Shelby appealing does not necessarily mean that young men will turn to crime, which, as others have pointed out, is caused by many different factors which are social, cultural and even biological. On the other hand, young men raised in environments where crime is a normal part of life who have no positive role models to aspire to will look at criminal characters as appealing for simply reflecting their own life.

In one chapter of Spreading Misandry, the authors reflect on an incident in the early 1990s whereby the then-Vice President of the United States Dan Quayle criticised the show Murphy Brown for its portrayal of single mothers in a way that he felt undermined fathers, resulting in predictable outrage from the media. Quayle was accused of reading too much into what was just a TV show or not knowing fact from fiction. The authors respond:

“Shows such as Murphy Brown are not the direct cause of single motherhood, either in the ghettoes or anywhere else. Nevertheless, they legitimate what many have already accepted in others or even decided to do for themselves. Few people, if any, have premarital sex after learning about it from sitcoms on television. But many feel no qualms about doing so, because, according to these shows, everyone’s doin’ it. And hey, if everyone’s doin’ it, how can it be wrong? In short, there is nothing trivial about popular culture.”

‘Spreading Misandry’

Young men who only see negative male role models will have similar feelings.

Nick Fletcher is the MP for Don Valley in South Yorkshire and seems to be one of the ‘Red Wall’ Conservative MPs who were elected in traditionally left-leaning Labour seats in the 2019 General Election. Being from Yorkshire myself, I’m pleased that there are MPs around here like Nick Fletcher and the Shipley MP Philip Davies that are willing to speak out on issues affecting men. Hopefully when the next election comes around he’ll be able to keep his seat, if only to spite the people he’s annoyed.