Male and Female

The Natural Traditional Roles Of The Sexes

* * *


INTRODUCTION: In this section I discuss the traditional evolved relationship between the sexes based on evolutionary norms and how it has become distorted in modern society, a development with significant consequences for the stability of society and which ruins countless individual relationships with tragic consequences for the well being of both men and women as well as their children.

This discussion should not be misunderstood as misogynist or an attempt to relegate women to inferior status. Not at all. I have the highest regard for women and always have. My best friends have often been women and it is also clear that throughout history it has been men, not women, who have been directly responsible for the most violence and destruction by at least an order of magnitude. This page is primarily a discussion of the naturally evolved roles of male and female from a biological and psychological perspective. There is certainly nothing inherently wrong with either individual men or women breaking out of those roles or redefining them today in any truly positive way. Certainly women can be and are brilliant scientists and thinkers and effective business and political leaders as well and that is to be admired. In fact some such women are among those that I admire most, especially if they manage to do so without subverting their femininity. The problem comes when societies as a whole attempt to subvert the natural biological roles of male and female in their relationships with each other most importantly in the family. When that is done there is grave danger that primitive evolved psychological imperatives will be directly triggered and lead to significant and even severe problems for society. We explore some of these consequences below.

It should be noted that generally such distortions of natural male and female roles such as those espoused by radical feminists are not simply caused by women, nor by men. Generally they are due to the misguided policies of the legislators who impose laws and ethical values which may seem to be well intentioned measures to correct real problems, but which being poorly formulated, either by ignorance or design, actually cause severer unintended consequences than the problems they were designed to remedy. Unfortunately the impairment of the family by the diminishment of the husband/father's biological authority over the family is a highly effective means by which the state enhances its control over the people to the detriment of society as a whole. Laws and policies that lead men and women to blame each other for their problems naturally divert attention from the failures of the state and its leaders who are too often the real cause of the problems affecting both.

THE EVOLUTIONARY BASIS OF MALE FEMALE RELATIONSHIPS: Humans are social animals which naturally form stable long term pair bonds for the benefit of their children. Such pair bonds have been the basis of all societies throughout history and have been incorporated into the cultural rules of every society in the institution of marriage. Marriage is essentially a recognition and societal support of the natural pair bond instinct which seeks to insure social order by imposing legal prohibitions on extra marital sex especially by wives, since it tends to lead to male male conflict over females, the breakdown of family units and social disorder. This is an excellent example of how culture modifies and codifies naturally evolved biological nature to support social structure.

However pair bonds have their own internal dynamics independent of any threat from other males. For a pair bond to remain optimal over time certain conditions must be met, and these conditions are based on naturally evolved male and female psychological needs which are ignored at peril to the relationship. Essentially what is required is that both man and woman provide both the physical and psychological needs of the other as well as those of the children. The woman needs to validate the man as a man, both for who he is and what he does. And the man needs to do likewise for the woman. This essential psychological satisfaction is an inherent necessity. There is nothing more satisfying for a man than that women validate him as a man. This fulfills the deepest psychological need for male status, much of which comes from his ranking by women. To the extent that his woman lets him know she ranks him highly in male status he receives much of the necessary validation of himself as a man.

The reverse is equally true. To the extent the man lets the woman know she is appreciated and valued both for herself and for all of her aspects and accomplishments her innate need to be validated as a woman is fulfilled.

In addition such a positive supportive approach itself greatly incentivizes even greater natural cooperation and mutually beneficial support. The whole idea of a good relationship is it be mutually beneficial where both man and woman, and the children as well, all are focused on contributing to the best of their abilities to the benefit of the family as a whole rather than to themselves as individuals. That is what provides maximum benefit to all family members over the long term.

Unfortunately in modern western societies this ideal has been largely subverted and relationships are often seen as adversarial with tragic consequences to all involved. There are a number of reasons for this which are explored here and in other sections but they boil down to two fundamental reasons. Dysfunctional role model programming from pop culture and other sources, and a dysfunctional legal system which incentivizes the breakup of the family rather than its healthy stability. The effect of this is diminishment of the traditional male satisfaction as head of his family as this power is effectively transferred to the state. The result is a large reservoir of male hatred just waiting to boil over in socially destructive ways, and a biologically very natural withdrawal of interest in and support for a family over which he has lost his position as head, and even further diminishment as the state requires he still support the family his natural biology tells him is no longer his.

Women and children, even if they retain financial support, also suffer greatly from such circumstances and they too often develop large reservoirs of natural hostility as their instinctive psychology suffers the abandonment of male protection and the emotional and psychological support they naturally crave.

Quite obviously the ideal is to prevent such family breakups before they happen by understanding what goes wrong and correcting that with a healthy, happy and stable family mutually beneficial to all members as the goal. To accomplish this both the man and woman must understand the evolutionary psychology of both themselves and their partners and act so as to ensure these most basic needs are met. There is a lot of misinformation of what these basic male and female needs are in our current politically correct culture, and that is precisely the problem. The question is not whether such basic instinctual needs are good or bad, nor to simply give in to the satisfaction of all our primal urges, but rather to accommodate them to the necessary extent, as it's self evident that to simply deny and block such powerful instinctual forces only leads to their re-emergence in ever more negative forms.

THE TRADITIONAL ROLE OF THE MAN AS HEAD OF THE FAMILY: So what is that that men and women need in a family relationship, and how can each act to help satisfy the needs of the other in mutually beneficial ways?

First and foremost the man needs to feel he is head of the family, that the family is under his protection and guidance and appreciates his daily efforts to that end and looks up to him for that rather than taking him for granted as simply performing a required duty. This is one of the deepest of the human male's primal instinctual needs, to have a family and care for it and guide its success, and to be appreciated in that role by his family members.

Now this must not be misunderstood as a dictatorial autocratic male who ruthlessly rules his family for his own benefit. Not at all, and nothing could be further from the truth. What it means is that, as in all healthy relationships, the family decision making is based on informed intelligent discussions on which activities will best advance agreed upon family goals. In almost all cases when the family goals are clear such discussions will come up with mutually agreed actions that seem to be best under the circumstances. The male head of family decision making authority will only be exercised when the family as a whole can't come up with an agreed decision and then obviously someone must make the final decision. Human male and female evolutionary biology mandates the final decisions in most such cases be made by the male since it is he who has the ultimate protective responsibility for the family by virtue of his superior physical strength and (evolutionarily speaking) better experience in dealing with the potentially threatening powers of the external world.

Of course in matters pertaining to the home itself the man will naturally delegate most of his authority to the woman to make the decisions and only intercede if the woman's decisions might diminish the financial security of the family or if such decisions are obviously harmful in some way.

Now to the inevitable criticisms of feminists and politically correct types consider the benefits of this approach. The man's intense imperative to feel he is head of family is satisfied and his commitment to and love for the family and his woman and children becomes ever more powerful and unshakable. And at worst the woman doesn't get something she may have wanted this time. But by living by this rule she instead gains something much more valuable, the undying love and support of her man whose deepest psychological needs she has satisfied, and shown herself willing to satisfy on a continuing basis.

It is also important to note that the man has in fact been recognized as head of the family in almost all cultures throughout history up until the historically recent rise of western societies. Up until then all cultures have recognized this natural male psychological imperative and institutionalized it in their moral and legal systems.

Now obviously men may make bad decisions as well as women and all decisions are best made on the basis of intelligent analysis and mutually agreed benefit but when that can't be achieved someone must make the final decision and that authority is traditionally the man's. That is the natural evolutionary biological order of things and also fosters the optimal psychological health of the family as a whole over the long run. Whether such individual decisions turn out to be optimal or not is not the point here.

OTHER MALE AND FEMALE NEEDS: This is one example of basic male psychological imperatives. A successful male female relationship requires that both parties satisfy those needs in their partners. In fact this should be a main focus of the relationship, to give the partner what he or she reasonably needs in whatever way possible. There is no better way to strengthen and ensure an optimal long term relationship than this. In fact one could say the function of men and women in a relationship is precisely to complete each other and meet each other's emotional needs. To do otherwise threatens the very foundation of the relationship.

With few exceptions men absolutely require validation by women to feel good about themselves. Men who don't have this or some other self-validation over extended time periods almost inevitably feel worthless and inferior and develop large reservoirs of hatred towards women and society in general.

I'm not referring here to just sexual satisfaction, though that is an important component. The large modern reservoir of male hatred towards women is due to the fact that so few women understand they bear an absolutely essential responsibility in validating men as men and as worthwhile persons. The validation I speak of is that the woman should be continually lauding and praising the man's good points, accomplishments, looks, personality and so on. She should do everything to ensure that the man gets what he needs to feel good about himself as a person and as a man. Sex is only a small part of the totality of what a man needs, but the fact that the woman loves and treasures and values her man enough to give herself sexually in ways pleasing to him and lets her man know that's why she does it is one of the many validations of the man as a man and as a person that he needs to feel good about himself.

Men who have this kind of love can't possibly hate their women. Men who are denied such validation are very likely to develop deep seated hatred and resentment for women in general sometimes even to the point of murder.

Likewise it is the man's responsibility and duty to do the same for his woman to make sure she receives the praise and appreciation and love to feel she is worthwhile as a woman and a person. That is absolutely essential to a good relationship, and by each partner doing so they in turn incentivize the other partner to do likewise and thereby strengthen the bonds of the relationship.

THE SOURCE OF MALE ANGER TOWARDS WOMEN: It's really all very simple psychology. The tragedy is that it happens so rarely in modern western societies where male-female relationships have become so dysfunctionally adversarial. The question why do so many men hate women with such rage today is an important symptom of this problem. The answer is obviously that modern western women aren't giving men what they need and want to feel fulfilled as men. Until that happens the problem will continue.

In fact the problem is so deep seated and acute that a large majority of modern westerners, both male and female, are actually ignorant and in denial of these very basic and obvious psychological needs even in themselves! Criticisms I've received are so programmed with the ideologies of political correctness that they make statements such as "As a woman, it is not my function to give men what they need. Nor is it my function to make them feel fulfilled." and "If a man requires that degree of reassurance from his spouse then he almost certainly doesn't deserve it."

Such comments reflect the appalling ignorance of and antithesis to basic human evolutionary psychology common in today's politically correct world. They express the typical dysfunctional western view that male female relationships are inherently adversarial. They reflect an armored personality which imagines itself completely self sufficient and independent of real love. And they express the macho stoicism of the contemporary western male which is a large part of the problem. This attitude of imagined independence from positive female loving and appreciation is often what discourages the woman from giving it and inevitably diminishes a relationship. Every man needs at least one woman to appreciate him and praise him for what he is and does, not to make stuff up with false flattery, but to praise and thereby enhance his real actual positive attributes and accomplishments.

Such critics might ask themselves why it is so difficult for them to give that essential psychological necessity to someone they supposedly love and why they are so adamantly opposed to doing so. Perhaps they have never been able to experience receiving such affirmation but believe me it does wonders for the psyche and one's mental and physical health. We can all only wish we had more of it.

Likewise the other way around. Women absolutely need the same from men too. If a man wants a successful relationship with a woman he needs to give her plenty of that. This is something that is certainly not difficult for me to give to a woman I love. It comes quite naturally for me to praise her good points and that naturally tends to reinforce them.

THE DYSFUNCTIONAL EFFECT ON SOCIETY: Not only does this problem scar countless individual lives and families. It's the root of many serious societal problems as well. So severe is this effect that it threatens the very stability of western societies by building a vast reservoir of men and women filled with bottled up hatred and rage. Such repressed hostility needs only the right spark to flare up uncontrollably.

Humans, like all species, have evolved in response to their environment. This adaptation occurred over several millions of years, actually much longer if we consider the evolution of our primate and earlier ancestors. One of the primary and most important adaptations was the natural role of the sexes and the family (reproductive) unit. Humans today largely maintain these same evolutionary adaptations, these same basic deep psychological roles. They are an essential part of our natural human psychology.

These natural biological roles are modified by culture, which is the passing down from generation to generation of learned knowledge and behaviors and cultural memes as opposed to the genetic transmission of natural biology from generation to generation. In addition to the accumulation of knowledge, culture also serves to modify natural behavior and codify it as social morality and laws. Thus culture invariably modifies natural biological behavior and in fact historically speaking there have been and are considerable diversities of these cultural systems including that of our modern western culture.

This inevitably sets up conflicts between natural biological behaviors which are embedded in our strong instinctual imperatives and cultural norms especially to the extent that cultural norms subvert and suppress natural biology. We certainly see this manifesting in current western society. How this happens is not always easily apparent as members of every society tend to view that society through its own cultural norms and often have difficulty taking a more universal and objective perspective.

There is also the problem of morality. All morality is relative to some system. There is no absolute morality. Thus members of any society tend again to view all behavior in terms of their personal morality which is most often a product of their cultural norms with only personal variations.

Thus many make the mistake of assuming that when I (or others) speak of 'natural biological behavior' I am advocating such behaviors as somehow 'moral', that they are the proper moral norms. This is simply not true. Morality is not a matter of naturalness but of optimal functionality and effect, and I have more to say on ethics and morality and justice elsewhere.

In any case it is vitally important to understand our natural biology and how it evolved and how it still influences our behaviors. Because for a culture to be effective it must take natural human behavior into consideration and it simply cannot totally suppress and subvert it long if a stable and functional society is to be maintained. Thus the ideal society is one in which natural human evolved behavioral imperatives are recognized and channeled into modes that strengthen the society as a whole rather than overtly blocking and suppressing such natural behaviors as immoral or illegal. That only bottles up the immense natural energies of the human psyche and inevitably tends towards a dysfunctional society in danger of deterioration.

I will argue that modern western society has to a great extent done just that. By suppressing much of natural biology it destabilizes and weakens itself by incorporating a number of politically correct (PC) memes which while they may sound good on the surface actually lead to dysfunctional unintended consequences.

So the important point is to judge social policy not by how it sounds on the surface with regards particular issues in isolation but by its actual longer term effects on the society as a whole. To achieve that we must always evaluate any such policy by in light of our innate human natural biology. Only thus can optimal social policies be formulated. So as you read through this section please keep in mind that description of natural behavior is not advocacy of such behaviors in their raw forms as moral or just or right but an attempt to understand where we come from and how and why we act the way we do. Then you will be more able to judge any recommendations I make, and the only recommendations I make will be clearly stated as such.

So in what follows I will explore a number of issues from the perspective of our evolutionary psychology, its historical cultural modification in traditional societies, and to what extent its additional modern cultural modification is functional or dysfunctional.

THE PROBLEM: Why is there such much antagonism between the sexes? What is the cause of the decline of the American family? Why is there such enormous hostility and anger boiling beneath the surface? The basic reason is that the natural evolutionary biological role of the sexes has been greatly modified by modern society. To some extent the very role of society is to codify and regulate natural biological behavior, without that humans would be unable to live in groups. However no society can expect to completely repress natural biological sexual roles and remain stable. The following is an analysis of the natural evolved sexual roles of males and females and how modern western society subverts those roles at its own risk.

BASIC MALE SEXUAL BIOLOGY: The basic evolved biology of the man is that he feels he should be in charge of and dominant over his women. That they should be under his direction, naturally acquiescing to his direction for the common good of the family. As long as this is so his natural response is to nurture and protect them, listen to their advice, delegate numerous appropriate responsibilities to them, and feel loving and caring toward them. This applies in general to all females in the male's family, be they wife, daughters, mother and any female relatives living under his protection in a family situation. However he also feels that his biological imperative gives him the necessary right to enforce his position and the family stability by discipline and even force where necessary. In the depths of his being he feels this is his duty, his responsibility and his right for the good of the family.

Not surprisingly then, to the extent that this, which he feels is his basic biological role, is appropriated by culture and laws which subvert this right, he experiences anger both toward the subverting authority, and also against his family members to the extent that they do exercise any such legally or culturally sanctioned ability to diminish his authority. To the extent that he is unable to express and resolve the resulting anger toward the family females, he will naturally tend to withdraw his affection and protective feelings from them and may abandon them emotionally and even physically. The same biological imperative applies also to the male's strong sense that it is he that has ultimate ownership and control over family property, livestock etc. This is the way that men evolved and lived over hundreds of thousands of years and during that time this was the norm for all families until very recently. The societal rules may have changed but male biology and psychology has not.

THE CULTURAL USURPATION OF MALE BIOLOGICAL PREROGATIVES: Culture of course has always usurped some of the individual male's authority as head of his family, though in early civilizations it was minimal, often imposing only minimal rules against incest, or excessive violence against the females under his protection. The point I wish to make here is that modern Western culture's excessive usurpation of this traditional male authority, based as it is in instinctual biological nature, is the primary cause of the destruction of the family in America and the west. This process has been ongoing and especially has greatly accelerated since the advent of female suffrage. However the ability of women to vote resulting in the evolution of a legal structure giving women equal, and in some cases greater rights in the home and over property would not have gone so far had basic female biology not in some way also been subverted.

THE NATURAL BIOLOGY OF THE FEMALE: It is natural that female sexual roles evolved in tandem with male roles. The natural biological role of the female is to accept her male's authority, especially insofar as it is fair, just and directed to the good of the family. Acting according to her natural biological nature, she only seriously revolts or complains when the male head of household exercises his authority at the expense of or to the detriment of the good of the family, though of course a low but good spirited level of complaint on the part of all parties naturally tends to incantivize greater efforts to the common family good. This much is natural and positive. In this way the male and female biologies synergistically reinforce each other, result in a strong and effective family structure, while both providing checks on the excesses of the other. It is only by restoring this natural biological balance of the male and female roles, that strong and happy families can be restored, which in turn will do much to establish more peaceful and functional societies.

MALE BIOLOGICAL ANGER AND ITS EFFECT ON SOCIETY: We see the result of the state's usurpation of the husband's authority in several ways. First an excessive and pervasive though often sublimated male anger and hostility at the loss of the traditional biological head of the family authority. This leads to significant increases in aggression and criminal acts against both family and society, and an increase in reactive violence against women and female children. The amount of such male anger now sublimated in such forms as video games, rap music, professional sports, hunting, violent movies and TV shows, and even the increasing tendency for nature shows to concentrate on violence and suffering, is an enormous pool of negative energy ready to spill over into real crime, war and revolution given the opportunity. If this male anger is not greatly reduced, it is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. Male instinctual biology cannot be changed, this pervasive male hostility can only be diminished by giving back men much of their family authority in which they find their natural sense of purpose and peace, and so restoring the integrity and stability of the family structure.

FEMALE ANGER AND ITS EFFECT ON SOCIETY: Women also suffer from this topsy turvy state of affairs. Having achieved 'equality' by repressing male biology, they are then faced with a society of angry hostile men, disinclined to be able to form stable family relationships. This in turn causes them to increase their complaints and even further oppose the man's role as head of the family, which in turn makes the situation even worse establishing a vicious circle which results in the destruction of the family to no one's good. Then men in turn are faced with a hostile society of females, who increasingly blame their resulting problems on men.

PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE: Societies today tend to be in different states of evolution with regards to male and female relationships. Fundamentalist Arab countries, and many more traditional societies do largely preserve the man's head of household authority, and as expected divorce rates are much lower and family stability and loyalty much higher in such societies. However, under the influence of Western culture, women in such countries are gradually gaining more power including the vote, so it will be interesting to see how this all evolves. In the end the only just and stabilizing solution is to understand and respect the biological role of the sexes with of course sufficient social protections against abuse by both the male and female family members.

SELFISHNESS AND ALTRUISM: Selfishness is a natural evolved behavior that is adaptive to increased survivability as it optimizes the resources necessary for the survival of the individual. However in small social groups such as those in which humans evolved, the survival of the group is an important factor in the survival of its individual members. Thus after the survival of oneself is assured it makes sense to help ensure the survival of the other group members by sharing resources, especially when there are surpluses. Thus the evolution of altruism is also a natural aspect, though with lower priority, than that of selfishness. Such altruism applies most strongly to family members, then extended family, then clan or tribe members and much less rarely to members of competing troops depending on a number of circumstances in that case.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: Surprisingly to some, actual statistics show that there is just as much or more domestic violence by wives against husbands as vice versa. It is just that the lesser strength of the wife typically causes less injury than that of the husband and so is comparatively under reported.

Most men, including myself, being naturally considerate and respectful towards women just probably don't think when a woman pounds her fists on a man, slaps or scratches him or hits him with a thrown object, that that rises to the level of what he considers 'violence'. However it should be recognized that if a man were to direct the exact same actions with the force against a woman the law does in fact consider that domestic violence. Thus if we are to apply the law equally to both sexes, it must be recognized that those actions by women against men must also be understood to be domestic violence. Either that or men should get a pass when they do it. Which would you prefer?

Almost all violence of husbands on wives is reactive. What reason would a husband have to strike his wife unless provoked? Yes, it is often more severe because men are stronger, that is why male domestic violence is relatively over reported and the violence of women against men is under reported.

The point is that almost all violence, other than that of seriously mentally ill persons, is reactive in the sense that it is the result of the escalation of some argument. That generally cuts both ways until the individual's violence threshold is reached. The important point with respect to domestic violence is that women often have lower violence thresholds than men. Most men have an innate reluctance to violence against women and only do so when the escalating dispute crosses their threshold of violence level. Women typically have less resistance to striking their man.

The result is that in the typical domestic violence situation it begins with an argument which escalates. It is often (but of course not always) the case that the woman's threshold of violence is then breached and she initiates some moderate level of violence, typically fist pounding, throwing objects, slapping etc. At that point the man responds in kind as his threshold is crossed and often ends the confrontation with decisive force.

As a result the woman is more likely to have visible bruises while the man may or may not show any visible signs of the confrontation. Thus the man is more likely to be charged since the woman is more likely to seek external force (police) to counter the superior force of the husband. The man generally has no reason to seek external help since he usually can handle the situation on his own due to his superior strength. Again this is a very typical and common scenario, but obviously not always the case. The result is a large under reporting of female DV.

It is also relevant to this that mothers seem to beat and physically and emotionally abuse their children as much or more than their fathers do. There have been a number of recent cases on the U.S. news of mothers even killing their children.