Disclaimer: In this post I'm going to talk about men and women in general terms and "on the average". I understand completely that not every man is stereotypically male, that not every woman is stereotypically female, and that gender identity can be fluid and even binary. Nonetheless, science still makes meaningful and important distinctions between men and women "on the average", and that's what I discuss here.
(Photographer: Me. Subject: My wife, Cindy)
Given that evolutionary psychology explains so much about human nature and society, it's truly sad that so many of us are ignorant of its findings. I certainly was until only a few years so. Perhaps the reason we are all so clueless on this subject is that the conclusions of evolutionary psychology are, as we shall see, very politically incorrect--offensive to both the political left and the political right.
Evolutionary psychology is the study of how evolution has shaped our psyches and therefore our societies. Its key insight is that male sperm is superabundant (and therefore "cheap") while female eggs are, by comparison, exceedingly rare (and therefore prized and competed for). When we consider that males produce and (potentially disperse) their sperm daily (or even potentially hourly) while females produce a fertilizable egg only once every 28 days on average (and then only during times when they are not already pregnant), the disparity in potential procreative success between men and women leaps into focus.
In short, males can theoretically produce far more children over a lifetime than females. For instance, the most children known to have been born to a single female human over a lifetime is 69, while the most the most children known to have been born to a single male human over a lifetime is...1,042!!
Given this procreative disparity, it's no surprise that evolution has "programed" each sex to pursue different strategies for passing its genes to the next generation.
For men, potential reproductive success is simply a linear function of the number of times they mate with fertile females. If you're male, there's little evolutionary advantage to being choosy about your mate since sheer numbers work in your favor: The more females you mix genes with, the greater the odds of eventually hitting the genetic jackpot--that is, of producing offspring that are better adapted to their environment. Thus, young men can take nearly limitless bites at the genetic apple and, as the male stereotype suggests, often do.
By contrast women get comparatively few bites at the genetic apple, and so they evolved to be much more sexually selective. While a stereotypical young man might be inclined to bed any women who can fog a mirror, the stereotypical women is understandably much, much more discerning. At a genetic level, few women want to waste one of their comparatively few reproductive chances on a marginal man.
Because eggs are so rare compared to sperm, and because women are understandably so choosy about their mates as a result, women hold all the evolutionary sexual power. This is evidenced in part by the extraordinary lengths to which males go to gain female attention and sexual favor:
In all species in which the female makes greater parental investment than the male (such as humans and all other mammals), mating is a female choice; it happens when the female wants it to happen, and with whom she wants it to happen, not when the male wants it to happen.
***
This is why men throughout history have had to conquer foreign lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint portraits and cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them. There would be no civilizations no art, no literature, no music, no Beatles, no Microsoft, if sex and mating were a male choice. Men have built (and destroyed) civilizations in order to impress women so that they might say yes. Women are the reason men do everything. (Exerpt from Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters by Alan Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa).
This last point cannot be emphasized enough: Evolutionarily speaking, women are the reason that men do everything.
Why do so many powerful male politicians and business men "risk it all" for a fling with a sexy young woman? Doing so seems absurd until we recognize, as evolutionary psychologists do, that "having it all" is just a means to an end, and that end is access to women. Women in fact are the "all", and these powerful men got exactly what they were evolutionarily programmed to seek.
By contrast, because the genetically fit female already has what most every male wants, she need do relatively little to successfully mate with exceptional males. She need not compose symphonies or construct temples or launch wars or steal resources to gain access to sperm. For any genetically suitable female, working or competing for sperm makes as much sense as working or competing for...air.
Given this birthright evolutionary power over men's psyches, women could easily rule the world. But...they don't. Why?
Well, for one, why bother? Ruling is a chore, after all. Why labor when there's no evolutionary payoff? Evolution disfavors wasted effort.
But there is another reason that women don't have more influence in the world: Men over millennia have gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent them from exercising their birthright sexual power--that is, to prevent them from employing their sex appeal in ways that gain them great influence. For instance, via the tools of religion and tribal "custom", men have conned women into believing that gaining an advantage in life by "selling" what all men are "buying" (that is, sex appeal) is somehow shameful, at least when done outside of certain societally acceptable, male-dominated institutions (e.g., marriage).
Men almost always try justify restraints on female sexual power in noble terms. For instance, former President Jimmy Carter recently spoke out against legalizing prostitution on the grounds that society must protect women from the men who would objectify them. Really?! I'm reminded of the Imams who insist that Islam honors and protects women by requiring them to wear burkas. Bullshit. Islam controls and limits them by doing so. There is no honor in a burka, and there sure as hell isn't any protection in it. Likewise, we do not honor or protect women when we employ various devices (like shame or anti-prostitution laws) to deny them the benefit of their most evolutionarily valuable asset.
What's most disappointing to me about society's repression of female sexual power is that men have recently been aided in their efforts by the most unlikely of allies--feminists. Feminists have inadvertently joined men in promoting a rather insidious untruth--that it's shameful for women to compete with and for men using their birthright sex appeal. Feminist women, males and the religiously-minded have convinced most women that selling sex appeal "objectifies'" and "dehumanizes" the female.
Bullshit! Do we objectify or dehumanize men when we allow them, without shame or scorn, in fact with praise, to market their most evolutionarily valuable asset (their physical brawn)? Do we objectify or dehumanize the intelligent among us when we allow them, without shame or scorn, in fact with praise, to market their most evolutionarily valuable asset (their mental capacities)?
Women are simply born with what, at the most instinctual, visceral level, men want more than anything else. Consequently, women have enormous power. But they have been conned into ceding it, shamed into abandoning it. Given the centuries of scorn heaped on sexually powerful women, it's no wonder that so many now associate sex with misogyny and oppression. And it's no wonder that they would seek to deny their oppressors what they most desire.
But in doing so they diminish their own power and influence. They forfeit their birthright. Power comes not from denying the oppressors their desires but by actively exploiting those desires.
Women will be truly equal only when they discard the societally-imposed shame, embrace their inherent sexuality fully, and demand whatever they will for access to it. Only when their most evolutionarily-valued asset is freely and openly marketed will they be truly empowered. Only then will they be able to exercise the societal influence that is their absolute birthright.
This is one reason why I'm so excited about Steem. Steem is censorship resistant. Its decentralized blockchain enables any woman who might be so inclined to fully embrace her birthright sexuality in a safe way that pays and rewards her directly--no middle man, no pimp, no overlord. And as those rewards accumulate, so too her social influence (that is, her Steem Power). Being blockchain based, this influence can never be seized or coerced away.
I won't be surprised at all if some of the most influential whales on Steem ultimately prove to be wicked-smart, highly-articulate and sexually-empowered women. As it should be.
Edit: Anyone interested in the topic of evolutionary psychology should consider reading the following books:
Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters
Sex at Dawn
Perv: The Sexual Deviant in All of Us