As a single coach — and also as a men’s coach — the distribution of roles is an everyday topic in my work.
This is a text by Monika Dittrich from the book “Female Choice”. Due to its relevance and topicality, I will comment on it afterwards from a male perspective.
Warm regards,
Gregor
Source: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/zukunft-der-menschheit-evolutionsbiologin-viele-maenner.1310.de.html?dram:article_id=492817
Evolutionary biologist: Many men will no longer find a sexual partner
Male civilisation contradicts nature — that is the thesis put forward by biologist Meike Stoverock. She has written a book on the evolutionary principle of “female choice”, according to which females control access to sex. What does this mean for the future relationship between men and women?
By Monika Dittrich
In the animal kingdom, it is the females who choose. Whether cranes, giant kangaroos or birds of paradise: the males of almost all species make great efforts to persuade females to mate. Biologist Meike Stoverock, who holds a PhD, describes it as follows:
“Attractive males with horns, antlers, ornamental feathers or bright colours put on a huge show: they sing, give gifts, build, threaten, collect, dance and imitate voices — to the point that the poor females become dizzy with erotic stimulation.”
Typically, males possess vast quantities of sperm with which they seek to inseminate females. For females, however, reproduction is far more demanding: their eggs are precious, and childcare is strenuous. That is why they are selective — they determine which males are allowed to mate.
A law of nature has been overturned
Not all males get a chance; many remain without a female and without sex. This is female choice, a law of evolution.
“Sex is a limited resource for males, one that is controlled by females. The fact that males often and persistently attempt to establish sexual contact with females, and that females almost always reject these attempts, is not a flaw in the system — it is the system.”
Meike Stoverock unfolds the panorama of evolutionary-biological connections with evident relish — and the conclusion becomes unavoidable as one reads on: humans are also just mammals. From a natural-scientific perspective, the principle of female choice must therefore apply to them as well. And, as the author convincingly argues, this was probably once the case.
“The current world population has roughly twice as many female as male ancestors; in pre-cultural times, approximately 70 per cent of women reproduced with only 35 per cent of men.”
Marriage prevents male sexual competition
So what happened that we now live in a male-dominated civilisation? Meike Stoverock explains it very succinctly: with the advent of agriculture around 10,000 years ago, humans became sedentary, and women disappeared into the private household, where they took care of the children. From then on, men decided on the distribution of women. They invented marriage in order to contain male sexual competition and secure access to sex.
Three years ago, the German Bundestag passed the law on “marriage for all” — a milestone in the emancipation of homosexual people. Joint adoption of children thus became possible. Lesbian couples, however, still face disadvantages when they wish to have and raise children within a marriage.
“This oppression […] is the foundation upon which today’s states, political systems and cultural spheres are built.”
This is a radical thesis — and Meike Stoverock argues for nothing less than a new world order. However, as someone deeply familiar with evolutionary history, she does not think in terms of years or decades, but rather in generations and centuries. And she does not call for a return to female choice in its purest form either, because, as she writes: “peaceful coexistence and high sexual competition are mutually exclusive.”
The Phenomenon of Incels
Yet the time may be ripe to rethink how women and men live together — especially since gender relations are already in flux; women, at least in Western societies, are becoming freer and more independent.
“Culture, not evolution, has so far made women available to men — and women are now breaking away from this.”
Men must be brave when reading this book — because the biologist assumes that many of them will no longer find a partner. What this biological perspective leaves out, however, is that men and women are probably more than the sum of their instincts. They do not bind themselves to one another solely in order to fulfil an evolutionary reproduction programme. That said, the biologist may well be right in her observation that so-called incels — men living involuntarily celibate lives — can become dangerous. Incels also exist in the animal kingdom.
“They are the ‘remainder’, the non-premium males left behind after the evolutionary selection process, with no chance of reproduction. Only through male civilisation, which has controlled and disenfranchised women, has this phenomenon been suppressed until now.”
Meike Stoverock now puts forward proposals for what coexistence between men and women might look like in a post-male civilisation — a world order in which women tend to choose several alpha males over the course of their lives, but in which not every pot finds a lid. She takes aim at the institution of marriage, which she sees as an instrument of oppression against women, and calls for a departure from the romantic notion that men and women can find happiness in lifelong monogamy
Men who no longer find women in this new world order are to be provided for in other ways — Stoverock considers sexual assistants and the role of prostitution, and she describes pornography as a possible “socially acceptable support” for men.
“Men who never or only very rarely find sexual partners must be given ethical and socially acceptable ways to satisfy their sexual needs.”
Meike Stoverock has written a disturbing book. It is radical and provokes considerable resistance. She deals with this cleverly and with foresight, countering arguments that may arise while reading. One does not have to like everything she writes; one may feel outraged by her image of men and women, her rejection of marriage, or the way she criticises religion. But that is precisely what makes her book so worth reading — because it invites us to rethink the relationship between men and women entirely anew and, indeed, to argue about it.
Commentary by Gregor Schäfer:
First of all… I have read the book.
What the author writes is not incorrect. “Women” do have the power of choice. An attractive woman receives significantly more messages on dating platforms than an attractive man.
The apparent lack of equality — at least in the Western world as we know it in 2021 — is, in my view, also exaggerated. It may be that I grew up in a world in which I could not perceive women as being unequal.
The claim that a woman cannot pursue a career is not true. She can decide which partner she wants, and she can also decide to divorce. She can choose which profession she wishes to learn, and she can negotiate her terms when being hired. The idea that women cannot attain positions of power or responsibility because they are prevented from doing so by their gender is, at least in our societies, not true.
How, then, are figures such as Angela Merkel, Marine Le Pen, Christine Lagarde, Ursula von der Leyen, Petry/Weidel, Julia Klöckner, or now Kamala Harris, who could potentially become the first female President of the United States due to Joe Biden’s age, to be explained? Are they better than men? That is not a discussion I wish to open.
There are countless female managers, women in HR departments, in banks, schools, hospitals, supervisory boards… it is possible — provided a woman chooses that path.
The Me Too movements have their justification, and the status of women in the 1970s was a very different one. Whether, in 2021, it is still necessary to take to the streets for more rights — at a time when men take parental leave, do household chores, actively raise children, do the shopping, and much more — is open to debate. Many men have become so-called “high performers”. After work, it is all about home, children and partner — and especially with home office arrangements, everyone is very much in the same boat.
Reducing men — or rather their role today — to what they once were does not do justice to present-day reality. When we speak of “new citizens”, this may indeed still tend to be the case, and in that sense the movements mentioned are certainly justified, as already stated. However, the clash of cultures is not the topic here; otherwise, the text would go beyond its scope.
Actio et reactio
It is not the case that “men” are the weaker sex, unable to feel and/or think as deeply, or that they suffer sexual deprivation simply because they are men. A woman’s libido can be very pronounced. Drawing rigid distinctions here strikes me as highly questionable.
In Zoom sessions with me, women have, for example, complained that during their childhood they were always presented with men as the heroes, as the stronger sex — and that this made them feel intimidated from the outset and less worthy. In reality, however, alongside Maya the Bee, Heidi, Pippi Longstocking, Ronja the Robber’s Daughter, Momo, Sailor Moon, Bibi Blocksberg, Ariel, Pocahontas, Mulan and Tinker Bell, there are also many adult female figures such as Tomb Raider and Resident Evil heroines, and more recently Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel, who can clearly be described as heroines.
Quote from the above text: “…only through male civilisation, which controlled and disenfranchised women, has this phenomenon been suppressed until today.”
If a certain form of arrogance towards men emerges, it can happen that a man turns away from a woman — or, by extension, from women altogether. A gender conflict is actio et reactio — let us not forget that. It takes two.
A man-hating form of feminism also works in reverse, and not all men become rapists or murderers. Many perfectly decent men with real potential are missed because they are “tarred with the same brush” by some women. The idea that a man must slay a dragon because a princess considers herself beautiful and clever is increasingly no longer enough for the knight. The question of what a woman can offer a man grows in parallel with feminism — because one conditions the other. Equality and expectations rise on both sides.
If a man does not find a sexual partner, he simply goes online or visits a sex worker. Without stress. Afterwards, he does sport, pursues his hobbies.
Outside of sex:
It is not the case that only men want love and that women can give it if they choose to. The reverse is just as true. Women are also searching for love and for the fulfilment of emotional needs. Finding this without effort is, in my view, an illusion — because in order to win a man with real potential, a woman must also court. In the past, appearance may have been sufficient; the classic red lipstick stands symbolically for this. Today, a man with potential assesses compatibility — the shared common ground. Terms such as shared mindset were probably not in use in our grandparents’ time. Today, they are.
That men wage wars and women do not… at least some historical narratives tell a different story: women may not go onto the battlefield themselves, but men do so on their behalf — or because of them. Of course, not always. No generalisations, please.
In my professional life, I was once dismissed by a woman because I came too close to her in terms of competence. So it is not the case that only men have egos that need to be protected. There are quite a few female department heads or women in senior positions who, in one way or another, ensure that others — including men — do not progress.
Women are not the secretly stronger sex, nor are they the weaker one. And even in 2021, at least in our societies, they are not the disadvantaged gender — and I say this as Gregor Schäfer, despite all the “statistics”. What matters is preserving the equality of opportunity that has been built. A true asset that we must defend in 2021.
Physical superiority cannot be denied, but not every man uses it to the detriment of women. Women, too, can cause great harm to men: indifference, lack of interest, character assassination, and much more can leave deep wounds.
The upbringing of immigrants of Arab descent… well, as mentioned above, that is another field entirely. A large one — and, in my view, one that urgently requires action. Addressing it here would take us into a different domain altogether: culture and values.
Warm regards,
Gregor
Tags: development between men and women, role distribution, gender distribution, the role of men, women’s freedom
