A glance at history will reveal a recurring reality: for whatever reason, men bear the vast majority of responsibility for the upkeep and advancement of society and the human condition. I put forth here that this is not a coincidence, not a conspiracy, and not going to change any time soon.


Humans are a sexually dimorphic species – that is, men and women differ both physically and mentally – because of the selective pressures placed on our ancestors as we evolved. If men and women had been subjected to identical selective pressures, we would likely be a less sexually dimorphic species.

A plausible reason women may have been protected relates to reproduction. Birth rate scales with women, not men: one man and N women can produce N children every year, whereas N men and one woman can only produce one child each year. The death of a woman is, in this manner, much more damaging to a people’s ability to remain in existence, so a disproportionate amount of peoples who survived to be among us today were those who shielded their women from selective pressures that would put their lives or reproductive utility in danger.

As a consequence, we can rightly expect that women’s capacities and instincts will not have been as aggressively shaped by natural selection as those of men. While many of the adaptations our species made will affect both sexes, those that are coded for on the Y chromosome will be entirely absent in women. Furthermore, those that are activated only under certain conditions – hormonal conditions, for instance, that indicate that the specimen is a male fetus or a grown man – will typically be absent in women.

The Empowered Woman’s Life Cycle

While we took a detour into evolution, let’s return to the topic at hand. We know what a woman’s life cycle looks like under male authority: she is married as a teenager, has many children starting from her teenage years, cooks, cleans, defers to her husband, and wears aprons. What does an empowered woman’s life look like in current year (2019)?

Much like a woman in a patriarchal society, empowered women begin having sex in their teenage years. However, whereas the patriarchal woman has sex with her husband who was vetted by her father for his ability to support a family, empowered women are having sex with precisely the males who can’t support a family and won’t be able to for another decade.

The empowered woman then progresses on to college, where the sexual activity accelerates to unconscionable levels, again mostly with young men who can’t yet support the natural product of this activity. They also have sexually debuted to adult men at this point, and many become sugar babies (prostitutes). She’s extremely desirable now and she knows it.

This goes on for some years, until she’s nearing age 30 and her biological clock begins to tick. Now she’s looking to get married, but still picky because she’s not 30 yet. Her fertility window is ending quickly; come age 35, she will be infertile. At this point, the typical woman is able to marry at an age between 30 and 35, and have one (1) baby in her entire lifetime.

Decisions, Decisions

Is this an example of good decision-making? How did this come to be? The previous section explains it: women were shielded from selective pressure that posed too much risk for their survival or reproductive utility. Women didn’t need to evolve to not waste their youth; men in their societies made sure they didn’t throughout history.

Furthermore, you may have noticed that women exhibit extremely poor mate choice: a great deal of their sexual partners are not capable of supporting a family. This is not surprising because, again, women’s mate selection instincts were not subjected to natural selection. Either strong men claimed women by force or women’s fathers arranged marriages for them with men who could support a family. Women who couldn’t choose well didn’t ever die off; they couldn’t be allowed to die, as their people’s continued existence would be at risk.

While we focused here on reproductive decision-making, this is merely a highly illustrative microcosm of the reality I am addressing. Men work dangerous jobs where failure to plan ahead well can result in their deaths: construction, mining, war. In the remaining jobs that men do, poor decision-making leads to financial failure, which reduces the size of the family he can support. Financial failure for a woman is not damaging to her reproduction because she is not expected to be a provider.

So, then, at best, women could be on par with men, but certainly not better; to claim women could be better decision-makers than men is to deny evolution. Furthermore, we can readily observe that women execute their lives in the worst way possible: risking pregnancy by indigent men, squandering their youth, then failing to produce enough children to replace themselves and their providers.


Whereas women have been shielded from selective pressures that put their lives or reproductive utility at risk, men have been aggressively selected by nature from the most successful men of each generation. While some of the gains of this evolution may be shared by the sexes, some are evidently not. As a result, men as we know them today are descended from the men best able to connect their actions to their consequences on their survival and reproduction. To the extent that this capacity resides in the Y chromosome or is activated by androgenic hormones, it is an exclusively male advantage that has ensured that men occupy all offices of high importance in a sane society.

Or, put in other words, man – not the sex-agnostic individual – is the basic unit of agency in our species. For any task where the ability to discern cause and effect is important, make sure a man performs it.