10 Biological Reasons Why Men Won’t Follow Women.
A lot of people, particularly women, are upset that we haven’t yet had a female President of the United States.
I mean, England loved their Queen for over 60 years. What could possibly go wrong?
But then again, England never voted for the Queen. She was an important figurehead, representing the wealth and power of the English Commonwealth, but the people still had a parliament and different political parties that the people actually got to vote for (led by a party leader or prime minister that the people don’t get to vote for).
Thus far, 3 out of 79 prime ministers have been women, all allegedly staunch conservatives, the most infamous being Margaret Thatcher, the “iron lady”.
Statistically, we know that men are much more likely to lean conservative and that women, particularly unmarried women, are more likely to lean progressive.
And so, one must ask, is the largely progressive cry for a female President of the United States impeded by the fact that most female presidential candidates reside on the political left?
Or in other words, does the best chance for a female President of the United States actually lie on the political right?
Despite the burgeoning manosphere, could Trump’s bipartisan approval and chance for re-election increase if he chose a Thatcher-type female running mate?
Perhaps.
But would that actually be better for the nation as a whole?
Well, that’s an entirely different question.
Women who call for more female leadership in politics and big business often haven’t explored the full psychological ramifications of female leadership upon the group as a whole.
In many cases, they may even be projecting their own inner-brokenness and emotional needs onto the broader community.
That may sound harsh, but perhaps when I’m done, you’ll understand why. Masculine men are naturally resistant to female leadership, and there’s a whole bunch of logical and biological reasons why.
Because we’re talking about a bigger picture here, namely a group or community or tribe or nation as a whole, it’s important that we focus on the basic archetypes of masculine men and feminine women, generally. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t carry weight when looking at large trends.
If you are feminist reading this, I want you to consider:
What if, beyond any of the socio-religious patriarchy and traditionalism about men being the leaders and women being the followers, there are actually built-in biological reasons why most men — especially masculine men — and many women, will not vote for, follow or respect a female commander-in-chief?
Here are 10 biological reasons why:
1. Women are physically weaker than men.
As the traditional warriors, men are built and wired for specific things that are beneficial to the community/tribe, but are fundamentally different than the ways women are naturally beneficial to the community.
Physically, men have denser bones than women, more muscle mass, more available physical power, compared to a woman’s superior flexibility and adaptability (which aids all the changes a woman’s body needs to undergo to have a baby).
Men are also naturally wired to be far more comfortable with conflict, competition and dominance hierarchies that women. This is why men gravitate towards playing and/or watching team sports, while women tend to prefer to dance and yoga.
We are naturally tribal creatures, and men want to compete with each other (and watch other males compete with each other) to gauge everyone’s skills, talents and abilities in the community, so that they know intuitively in an emergency how much responsibility to take upon themselves and who to look towards for guidance/leadership as the alpha of the pack.
And anyone who’s paid any attention to female sports knows that even the most elite female athletes tend to far rank below even your average fit and healthy men.
Case in point, when female Olympic athletes throw the shot-put or discus, it appears to the viewer to be roughly the same distance as the male Olympians throw, but the discus and shot-put used by female athletes is actually half the weight of the discus and shot-put thrown by male athletes!
In other words, if they made the women compete with the same amount of weight that the men were throwing around, we would consistently see female distances being only a third to half of what the men were scoring and no men would want to watch the women compete at all.
Women’s sports is already hard market to sell because most women aren’t wired to be interested in all the competition and conflict and seeing who’s the greatest, and most men don’t care because there’s not enough inherent ability or greatness to attract their attention.
When men are looking for a leader, one of the things they want evidence of is that the proposed leader is or was, in some way, a superior athlete to them in strength or skill or strategy. That earns their respect.
Whereas female tennis pros can only throw a tennis ball farther than the lowest 3% of all men.
So, men by default write off women in this category because even the most elite female athletes rank somewhere around the lowest 5–10% of men in terms of inherent strength.
2. Women are physically smaller than men.
This may sound like it’s essentially the same thing as #1, but it’s not. In terms of basic leadership, men want to follow a man they look up to.
Literally.
Yes, this does mean a man they can respect, but being able to literally look up at a man because he’s taller than you creates the same psychological effect, because you spend the first 15–20 years of your life looking up to people who are physically bigger and taller than you for leadership.
Whether they’re a parent or an older sibling or a teacher or some sort of authority figure, you learn to connote height (and by extension physical size) as an indicator of gravitas, knowledge, wisdom, security, leadership ability, etc.
And like him or not, Donald Trump is 6'3", which not only makes him the 3rd or 4th tallest US President in history, but also puts him in the top 2% of all American men by height. In other words, 97% of American men and 99.9% of American women literally look up to him when they meet him.
The average man, across most nations in the world, is 5–6 inches taller than the average woman of that nation. So, while there is definitely a crossover area, in which the shortest 20–25% of men physically look up to the tallest 20–25% of women, it signals in your mind as an anomaly, not the rule.
And because this is the rule we internalize, being a tall woman is not a solution to this issue.
Let me explain.
There is a psychological effect based on these inherent height differences in which most people not only look down on short men, literally and figuratively, but they are also unconsciously uneasy around and distrustful of them, because they are outliers in the social hierarchy.
That uneasiness/distrust extends by default to tall women, because masculinity likes hierarchy, and tall women are an anomaly in the inherent hierarchy.
So, while a man who wants tall children may be better off having them with a taller woman, he’s less likely to choose a taller woman as a prospective partner if the height gap between the two of them is less than 8% of his height.
Based on height alone, a 6'4" man will choose a 5'8" woman over a woman who’s 6'0", because even though he’s still several inches taller that 6'0", the proximity of her height to his is unnatural in the balance of things and threatens the natural size hierarchy. (In other words, what may be a 6-inch natural height difference in the 5-to-6–foot range is more of an 8-inch difference in the 6-to-7-foot range.)
And this is far from just a “guy” thing.
Most women say they want a man who’s at least 6'0", because that’s above average for men and taller than virtually all women. It actually represents security for them, because if a woman sees her man regularly around much taller men, and even other women who are taller than him, that unconsciously diminishes him in her view.
And all women want a man they can respect just as much as every man wants to be respected.
So while almost everyone unconsciously wants someone they can literally look up to as a leader, men (as a rule) don’t look up to women, and when they are forced to by circumstance, they are inherently resistant to it as its unnatural.
3. Women have higher, less powerful voices than men.
In studies tracking the lowering and deepening of women’s voices over the past several decades, a direct inverse correlation can be shown connected to the decline in male testosterone.
Just as the strength of women’s grips appears to have increased as a direct result of the obvious weakening of men in society, another effect appears to be that of women developing lower voices.
It has been suggested that traditionally, in a society in which a lot of men have deep and commanding voices — which has been proven to be the result of higher testosterone levels — women naturally become lighter, higher-pitched, and more bouncy and flute-like in the tone and tenor of their speech.
So, in much the same way that we have an ingrained perception of height relating to authority and leadership, depth and power of voice is something that we associate with authority from the time we are children. “Dad” has the deeper voice, and we internalize that auditory signal as an indicator of the security, strength and gravitas he has as “the man” of the household.
With the downfall of healthy masculinity in our culture, many women have not grown up in a place of security with men, in which they can feel free to be light, girlish and flute-like in their voice. They have learned to stay at the very bottom of their vocal range as a defense mechanism and be more masculine and assertive in the tenor of their speech.
And this has been shown to lend them additional perceived authority in places of business and public arenas. The deeper a woman’s voice is, the more men and women are inclined to take her words seriously as a leader in the workplace.
But while this appears to be “natural” — adaptation to change, survival of the fittest, what have you — and a by-product of the weakening of men generally, the root of the issue comes back to some level of unhealthiness, both individually and societally.
Healthier men have healthier testosterone levels, which gives them deeper and more commanding voices. In contrast, emotionally secure, healthy women tend to have higher-pitched voices.
Therefore, women with lower voices don’t give off a healthy, emotionally secure signal to others.
And so, regarding girl-bosses, while women and subordinate men will respond more immediately to women with deeper voices, it still unconsciously sends the signal to everyone (except perhaps for very damaged women) that this environment/situation, in which the woman is leading the group, is unhealthy, unstable and unsustainable.
Yes, you can have a more masculine, dominant woman lead a team of women, like in a small business boutique or nail salon or clothing department, but if there are any half-masculine men in that group, it signals to everyone in the team that they’re in a sinking ship and that they need to get out; it’s not the sort of sustainable, long-term environment that can expect to thrive as a business.
So, unless you are prepared to exclude all remotely masculine men from your business or nation, you either a) can’t have a woman in charge, b) have a super feminine figurehead with no real authority, in which everybody involved knows that she’s only there to be the public face because of branding — like the Queen — or c) expect to fail.
4. Women are hormonally less consistent than men.
One of the great strides forward in the field of health the past decade or so is a re-recognition of the way our hormones affect so much of our mood, attitude, thoughts, emotions, speech, patterns of behavior, etc., and, in turn, just how much basic things like diet, exercise, sunlight, fresh air, healthy sleep habits, time in nature, grounding, etc. affect our hormonal cycles.
Men and women have very different hormonal cycles. Understanding men and women, and understanding health as it relates differently to men and women, requires understanding healthy hormonal cycles.
Men have a daily hormonal cycle, like the sun. With a good routine of healthy food, sleep, fresh air, exercise, and appropriate downtime, a man can work day in, day out, and be relatively consistent and productive his entire lifetime.
Women, on the other hand, have a monthly cycle, like the moon, with natural ups and downs that literally affects their behavior in dozens and dozens of ways beyond the whole PMS cliche we’ve heard so often.
A healthy woman will naturally have some days she’s more internal, some days she’s more external, some days she’s more creative, some days she’s more social, some days she does want to be touched, some days she doesn’t, and some days that she wants to be the one doing all the touching herself.
Being in tune with this longer cycle helps a woman’s adaptability to the even bigger cycle of pregnancy, childbirth and recovery. And that’s a good and natural part of being a woman.
However, while that may be exactly what is needed for feminine creativity, it’s not well-suited for consistency and stability, which are some of the biggest things people want in a leader.
We look to leaders for security and stability. It’s not enough to be the one with the goal or the plan, you need to show us that you’re unflappable and consistent, so that the natural bumps in the road, whatever they be, ultimately don’t matter.
Holistically healthy, masculine men are the societal benchmark for security and stability. They have a vision, they’re consistent, they work hard, they build what they want, they have success, and they attract followers to them because of this pattern of consistency.
And many women in positions of power and influence have found the high expectations upon them to be ultimately untenable.
Moreover, we are always picking up different pheremonal and electrical cues off each other.
In most animals, especially predatory ones, the male can detect a pregnant female by scent alone.
As people, we may not have that level of smelling ability, but we’re not all that different. We pick up different pheremones and vibes from different people based on their mental and emotional state and their hormones.
When my wife isn’t pregnant, for most of the month and especially during ovulation, her body is putting out signals and hormonal scents for me to come and impregnate her, and my body responds to that.
When she IS pregnant, even before either of us know she is, her body stops putting out those signals, and starts putting up pheremonal walls so she can develop this safe space inside of her to grow this new life. Every time my wife has been pregnant, I’ve noticed a substantial decrease in the way my body responds to her, and that’s usually our first clue she’s pregnant.
She’s not any less physically attractive to me, but unconsciously my body is picking up signals from her that she doesn’t want or need me to come impregnate her, which is part of what her body IS asking for every month as a natural part of her hormonal cycle.
Her body wants to create life, and anything life-affirming is good. However, that hormonal cycle of hers is inherently less stable to men than our daily cycle is.
This is a large part of why we as the men take that leadership role upon us to provide in the family dynamic. Beyond any protective instinct, we see that, for survival, the leader of any small group needs to be the most stable one in the group, and that we are better equipped as men to be that stable one for the women and children, and so we take that burden upon us and rise up to that challenge.
And because masculine men, either consciously or unconsciously, at some point in our lives, recognize the need for us as men to be the stable one in the relationship, we can no longer look at women as potential leaders over us.
Once a man stops being a boy and takes that responsibility upon himself to be leader in his own family, women are inherently no longer in the running for any leadership positions over us in our lives. They just aren’t even on the table as a healthy option, because we’ve accepted them as someone to be protected under our wing.
So, while some men might tolerate a female boss for a time — keep doing their job, make the best of a bad situation, etc. — they will not respect her as their leader.
No man ever is going to follow a woman into battle, unless he ascribes some supernatural importance or protection to her, ie. Joan of Arc — in which case, he’s not actually following her but God, whom he believes just so happens to be with her.
And we can actually use the rising acceptance of female political leadership by men as a barometer of the decline of healthy masculinity in the West. If the men of a nation actually vote for a woman to lead them, it essentially shows other more masculine nations that they are ready to be conquered. And the mass immigration we are seeing is one of the first big evidences that we’re already being perceived that way.
5. Women are more physically attractive.
This might sound at first like an oxymoron. Being attractive usually gains you social credibility, which is a good thing in politics, right?
Well, yes, in America, elections have become such a popularity vote that appearance counts for a lot. But if you look further into the nature of the way we perceive and respond to beauty, you’ll see that as far as leadership roles are concerned, attractiveness in a man adds credibility, but for a woman being either too attractive or not-attractive enough works directly against her interests.
(And I’m not only talking about the responses of men here. Recent studies have shown that while many men’s eyes only light up with arousal when looking at women, the eyes of ALL women light up with arousal for both attractive men AND women. Some have suggested this is because we’re all wired to find breasts attractive because of the instinct to breastfeed, and have concluded that all women — without hetero-normative social conditioning — are bisexual. Either way, all of us, men and women, are wired to recognize and respond to healthy, fertile, attractive women.)
If a woman is quite attractive, a couple different things will occur in response to her assuming a position of leadership.
Firstly, most of us will be more interested in watching her speak than what she has to say.
Those of us who do listen, however, aren’t likely to take it as seriously or remember what she said.
And anyone who does take it seriously is more likely to be extra-guarded, skeptical, incredulous or contrary in response to her words instead of rallying behind them.
And, contrary to what some of you assume, this isn’t because we think pretty girls are all stupid by default. That’s feminist propaganda. It’s actually about emotional health and stability.
Emotionally stable, healthy women are more likely to both take care of themselves and also present an outward appearance that reflects their view of healthy self-respect.
But emotionally stable, healthy women typically aren’t at all interested in politics or being the CEO of anything. And I mean typically. This is another one of those rules where anomalies unconsciously signal as red flags in our minds.
Deep down, we all instinctively recognize that the most emotionally healthy women want to be mothers and grandmothers instead of public figures, and because such women are widely desirable to high-quality men, they rarely miss the opportunity to do so. They will almost always find a masculine man who wants to support them in being a stay-at-home mother.
And we all, therefore, distrust women that we perceive as being very attractive or high-quality women who haven’t pursued that avenue. We presume that if their life is so devoid of family warmth that they are pursing a position of social leadership when they shouldn’t have to, there must be something potentially sinister or problematic under the surface that makes them undesirable to be wives to high-quality men.
In other words, any woman we view as being of high-enough quality that we’d want to vote for them is someone we wouldn’t want to have to put in a position of leadership anyway, because we understand intuitively there’s an even better thing she could be and deserves to be doing.
This is why the only moderately successful women in politics are usually very average-looking, boyish, and altogether not particularly feminine.
They will also wear little-to-no makeup, or the illusion thereof.
This is because a lot of men dislike make-up. It’s true. While we can appreciate it out in public, as a form of dressing up — because there’s a level of social credibility in appearance and put-togetherness, which is relevant to the social hierarchy — we know you’re not really you when you’re wearing it.
It’s a mask.
It makes young girls look older. It makes old women look younger. It’s ultimately a false face. And you can’t have a real relationship with anyone if you can’t see through any false face they might be putting up. So, as men, we need to see you in a range of real situations without pretense and makeup before we’re sure we’ve got the real picture of you.
And women in politics, either naturally attractive or made-up to appear so, look to all of us like they’re wearing a false face. We unconsciously, therefore, esteem them to be not trustworthy.
6. Women age quicker than men.
While it’s commonly accepted as a fact that women live longer than men, a number of recent studies have shown that be almost entirely untrue, and the so-called longevity gap is quickly disappearing due to changing lifestyles.
After accounting for the greater prevalence of violence and danger and harmful lifestyle habits like smoking in the lives of men in times past, there’s barely any difference in life expectancy. In fact, right now, educated, married men have at least a 45% chance of outliving their partners.
What’s more, life expectancy for men actually further increases both in situations where the wife is younger than the husband, and also in polygynous nations where the man has more than one wife.
But one of the big reasons for the closing longevity gap is the fewer amount of children women are having now compared to the past.
While one old Polish study suggested that women lost almost 2 years of life for every child they had (because it stripped their own bodies of minerals), that appears to be an isolated finding based on poor food quality/malnutrition.
All the modern research, in fact, shows the opposite; that mothers live longer than non-mothers; that mothers with two or more children live longer than mothers with one child; that women who breastfeed four or more children effectively reduce their chances of developing breast cancer to zero.
And contrary to the idea that a baby is just a parasite sucking life out of the mother, it’s now been proven that during the 9 months of pregnancy, a mother’s body actually has access to the baby’s stem cells for helping heal their own body. As long as the woman is eating a wide range of nutrient dense food and getting enough sleep, pregnancy is a fully symbiotic relationship that is highly beneficial to the health of both the mother and baby. In fact, mothers who have at least one baby in their late 30s/early 40s have a significantly higher chance of living into their 90s than mothers who only have children young.
But regardless of actual health and longevity, there’s the matter of the effects of aging and what that signifies to the broader community.
Men who are only moderately healthy retain much of their physical strength and ability well into their fifties, sixties, even seventies. And we likely all know that men can still be very virile into their seventies (and fertility is always an indicator of overall health).
Whereas, in addition to menopause (which ends a woman’s fertility entirely), women appear to us generally to get more frail much more quickly than men.
Now, as a percentage of their own original peak strength, this perception may be entirely untrue — in other words, they might actually get weaker at the same or at a lower rate as men as they age — but because women at their peak are already substantially weaker than men as we’ve shown, whatever natural frailness or decrease in strength that comes with aging upon “the fairer sex ”appears compounded to us.
So, while we might look to post-menopausal women as sources of knowledge and expertise that are very beneficial to our community; as educators, as healers, as nurturers, as storytellers, as grandmothers, etc., we also view them as substantially weaker than women in their 30s.
On the other hand, a majority men in their 50s, 60s, and even 70s, are still physically stronger than average healthy women in their mid-30s.
What this means is that while older women may indeed have wisdom and expertise, and be very valued by society, we also view them as the physically weakest demographic in society next to little children, which automatically disqualifies them as leaders to follow in the eyes of mature, masculine men who view them as needing protection.
Now, you may wonder then why we spend so much money on security and secret service to protect our political leaders if we unconsciously expect them to be so strong.
The long and short of it is that men don’t protect their leaders because the leader is weak. They protect the leader because their tribe is stronger for keeping the leader alive, even if that means sacrificing their own life. It’s in the interest of the whole community/nation.
And no masculine man views an old woman as the alpha wolf worth taking a bullet for, for the good of the pack, because they all know they personally would be a stronger leader. Yes, you want to protect that woman, but you don’t take a bullet for her.
7. Women have babies.
It probably feels like we’ve already covered this but we haven’t actually talked about the impact of pregnancy/motherhood itself on women pursuing a career or long-term leadership or political role.
Women have been encouraged for decades now to pursue a career over being a wife and mother; being told that they could have their children in their late 30s after they already spent their most healthy, fertile years seeking an office job.
And women pursuing such paths have faced a degree of skepticism and discrimination from men based on their being women, because of the motherhood issue. When you hire a woman under 40–45, you are taking upon the risk of having to pay for months of maternity leave for no work done.
Statistically speaking, right now, about 75% of women under 45 will have at least one child, and about 50% will have at least two. That’s a hard sell to companies.
And unless you are in high demand because you’re very very good at what you do, or it’s a smaller family business, they will want to see evidence you’re loyal to them and going to make it worth their while for a few years before you leave to have children.
And so, even women who do want to have children and/or be a stay-at-home mother some day will downplay that desire for those things publicly in order to pursue their career. They will prioritize serving their boss over things they believe at the end of the day are more important.
And because they’ve invested so much time and effort into their career, when they finally do get pregnant, many feel obligated work full-time the whole nine months, take the minimum 12-week maternity period that they’re guaranteed, and then put the baby under someone else’s care so that can get right back to work to keep the job they’ve worked so hard for.
And, psychologically speaking, nobody who actually cares about the good of the mother or the baby is really happy with this survival-mode way of living. The baby is not ready to be separated from its mother. The mother is not ready to be separated from the baby. Her recovery takes more than 3 months, and breastfeeding is a natural symbiotic part of the recovery process for both mother and child.
Yes, we all “understand” when women feel they need to get back into the workforce after having a baby; life is complicated, we all need money to get by, it’s harder for many people to survive on a single income, and there’s a lot of women out there doing it all alone who feel their only option is to be the breadwinner and pay for childcare for someone else to raise their baby.
But none of us view that as an ideal situation. Not for the baby. Not for the woman. Not for society.
Most of us, I hope, if we were asking ourselves what were really best for the physical and emotional health of everyone involved, would agree that a woman should not feel obligated by circumstance to remain in the workforce while pregnant or return to the workforce before she actually feels ready to.
And that’s going to be different for every woman.
This is why setting fixed amounts of time like “12 weeks’ job security” is ultimately creating a benchmark or standard that will not fit most woman. It’s not in their best interest. We know that these things shouldn’t be rushed like that.
But that also unconsciously means to us that women cannot be relied upon in the same way that a leader ought to be.
Putting a woman in high-stress leadership jobs over lots of people creates a lot more pressure for a woman to work outside the home to her own detriment and the detriment of her family. And if she does crack under that pressure, it’s likely to negatively impact everyone else in the company or nation too.
Which means that even picking a younger, stronger woman in her mid-30s for a powerful leadership role is a poor fit based on the inherent risks to both her and the nation/company.
No masculine man would dream of attempting to limit a woman’s ability to choose to have children if she still can. But having that option on the table at all does constitute a subconscious threat to the stability the leadership role inherently requires. This makes any still-fertile woman an unsuitable candidate for big leadership roles.
8. Women breastfeed.
This is a point I wanted to reiterate, because even though it’s part of the whole motherhood package, it creates a separate issue.
For optimal health, it’s recommended that babies are breastfed for 12–18 months, but it used to be considered normal and healthy to breastfeed children until 3 or even 4 years of age.
But outside-the-home jobs don’t make allowances for mothers to bring their baby with them to work for as long as the mother and baby need. When they come back to work, they are expected to function more or less like a man would.
A majority of women, if they were securely provided for and didn’t have to worry about money, would choose to be a stay-at-home mother for as long as they felt like they or their children needed that. And we all intuitively recognize this.
But what this means is that we recognize women are made to be mothers, and that motherhood is important, and that mothers actually need to not be working while they’re pregnant, and that they shouldn’t be or feel rushed back into the workplace, and that infants are not meant to be separated from their parents.
Heck, preschool and school-aged children develop separation traumas that affect their attachment in adult relationships because children are not psychologically and emotionally ready to be separated from their parents all day like that until they’re seven or eight years old!
In an ideal world, I wouldn’t want any women working in a full-time outside-the-home capacity from the time they find out they’re pregnant, until their youngest child turns eight.
I’m sure that sounds extreme to a lot of you, and I don’t believe there’s any actual way to subsidize or fund that, especially on a federal level, but, admittedly, I’m a “small government” guy.
I think the only real way that a policy so very good for people could functionally work for everyone is if it’s happening in small, self-sustainable communities. I would want to guarantee that all mothers have a home for them and their children, on two acres, that they don’t need to pay money for and that they will own the deed to by the time their youngest child turns 18 for the simple job of being there to raise and home-school their children.
And if they do need to earn extra income, because they don’t have a man providing for them, I would want to ensure that they can do so with just a couple hours of work a day from their home; cutting hair, teaching piano, tutoring, doing massage, natural healing, making and mending clothing, selling sourdough bread and muffins or eggs and produce from their own garden, running a small bed and breakfast with a few cabins out in the backyard, etc.
Anyway, the point of all this is to say that women in career-focused, time-consuming leadership roles exist outside of the natural element we intuitively recognize as being ideal for women and children.
When we put mothers in these roles, we are depriving them and their children of each other.
When we put still-fertile non-mothers in these roles, we are blocking and disincentivizing them from what will likely make them happiest and most fulfilled in life, while probably wasting time and money in the process.
And when we put non-mothers in their forties and beyond in these roles, we’re hiring what studies have shown to be the most miserable and unfulfilled demographic, to function in jobs they likely won’t be respected for, in service of a corporation that won’t fulfill them, won’t care for them when they’re old, and won’t mourn them when they’re gone.
Now, I’m obviously not saying women aren’t free to pursue these sorts of careers. But we, as a general populace, don’t actually believe that that’s in their (or our) best interest.
9. Women are more emotional and empathetic than men.
We’re almost done, I assure you. Kudos if you’ve made it this far. I was hoping this would be a short and simple list, but some of these ideas just needed more explanation than I expected they would.
But, I’m a writer; a story-teller at heart. I would rather make a long and reasonable point than a series of short, inflammatory and unexplained claims.
Now, any feminist pushing for more women in leadership will likely think that women being more emotional and empathetic than men makes them more suited to leadership.
Any masculine man will tell you otherwise.
It’s not that these traits aren’t useful or valuable. They are. It’s important that leaders have empathy and feel the consequences of their choices and the plight of the people they serve.
But those traits need to be tempered with logic, reason, wisdom, foresight, a broad perspective, established patterns of human behavior, and the courage to make the hard choices for the greater good.
Now, I’m not saying women don’t have those traits. I am, however, saying that women tend to value emotions and empathy far more than those other traits, and therefore weigh them much higher in their decision-making, and are more likely to make “feel-good” decisions to the direct detriment of those they serve.
Men, on the other hand, have different values. Men of principle don’t take leadership positions for popularity or to be seen helping the plight of the disadvantaged at the direct expense of the common man. They don’t sacrifice freedom for safety, because they understand it’s on them to make things safe for the women and the children and the elderly, and limiting their own freedoms actually impedes their ability to protect others.
So, good masculine male leaders will process their emotions healthily, feel that empathy for those in need, and then they will balance those needs with the needs of the group as a whole.
Women, being genetically predisposed to care for groups of little children in the home, are generally wired to look for the one who’s crying or hurt or sad or in trauma within the group, and will focus on the neediest, either seeking to distract everyone else from the special attention or preference they are giving, or command everyone else’s attention towards the neediest one.
And most men will agree that one of the biggest problems with women in high-power roles is this exact issue. They sacrifice the needs of the team as a whole for whomever is whinging the loudest. And this is a problem because it actively rewards whiny, immature, annoying behavior in society, and teaches the next generation that bitchy complaining is what gets you positive attention. And this drastically weakens our entire society.
Most men understand this from a young age through playing team sports. They internalize hierarchy from a young age.
And women generally don’t. They either want to do their own thing, or they want everyone to be equal and winning doesn’t matter.
That’s great for little kids, but this isn’t great for men, boys or society in general.
10. Women can’t pee standing up.
I know this probably sounds like we’ve reached peak ridiculousness, but hear me out.
In all the wars in all of history, until very recently, it’s all men. Women in war is so rare that we remember these ancient stories of women like Joan of Arc and Hua Mulan who donned male armor and went to war on horseback. It’s so rare, in fact, that there’s a theory out there that those two legendary women might even have been based on the same original story.
I hope we can all agree that war is traditionally a masculine art.
Now, war is just one of the ways we handle conflict, and success in battle relies chiefly upon the morale and mutual trust of the group as a whole. An army or a squad needs to have high-trust between each other. They know they’ve got each other’s backs.
And besides everything we’ve already discussed about women in general being undeniably weaker and more conflict-avoidant, in a situation of threat or danger, everything counts, including bathroom habits.
A group of scouts in a high-stress stake-out need to remain silent and stealthy for long periods of time. If nature calls, a man on his guard can unzip, urinate, shake it off and zip back up without ever dropping his guard.
A woman in that same situation either needs to piss herself (which obviously isn’t ideal for anyone) or have people cover for her so she can squat down into a position of vulnerability. Her guard is completely down and in that moment she’s a liability to the group.
And I know you’re probably thinking, but come on, how many men nowadays are going to be on a dangerous, all-night scouting mission or stake-out?
Look, I freely acknowledge that this sounds a little ridiculous and irrelevant, but it’s not for men.
The exact same thing applies to men who need to wear glasses. They bring a liability with them. And I say this as a man who has needed glasses most of my life. Those glasses fall off or get broken from a punch to the face, you’re blind out there and liability to the whole group.
Men intuitively register glasses as a liability in a dangerous situation. The different bathroom needs of women constitutes a similar liability. It may be unlikely, but it adds an extra degree of risk to the risk assessment calculation that men will make for themselves.
It’s part of what we do as protectors. We assess risk, threats, dangers, and seek to mitigate them as much as possible, because everything else falls upon us directly. That’s how we’re wired.
So, of course the girls and the geeks and the proven weakest players will get rejected from or picked last on our teams. Because we will intuitively take more upon ourselves to cover those liabilities, and that’s more burden upon us.
And of course we’re not going put that weak link in the position of leadership over us, because that leader has to carry the biggest burdens of all. That’s why we want the strongest, most resilient man for the job. Because we need them to be strong when even we’re weak.
They still need to be a source of strength and morale to the whole group.
And, again, this isn’t about the deficiencies of women and why they are unfit leaders. That’s not what I’m claiming here.
This is entirely about understanding men, and where they’re coming from, so that you, women, can have enough perspective to empathize with them and the burdens they are taking upon themselves.
I’ve just given you ten biologically-driven reasons why men are wired to not respect or follow female leadership, and why those that do are the weakest of men.
And, sadly (or intentionally), the government institutionalized schooling system has pushed back very hard on boys from a young age for any behavior that rejects female authority figures as though that’s a character flaw to be trained out of them.
It’s not.
Men are not wired to follow women.
Many of the biggest problems in the world today can be directly or indirectly attributed to the lack of strong masculine leadership and protection in our modern world.
And maybe, just maybe, if our mothers can understand that that stubborn fight and resistance in your two-year-old son is part of what is going to make him a strong man capable of standing up against bigger threats and protecting women, maybe then you won’t spend the next fifteen years fighting to quash it all out of him.
You can’t spend his whole childhood training him to act like a girl and then be disappointed when he fails to step up as a man. That’s on you.
