What Women Want, What Men Need

For all of human history women have been sexually and romantically attracted to male power. This is common sense from a female perspective. Strong men provide resources and protect women and children. A psychological consequence of this trait, which developed over evolutionary time, is that women mate across or upwards in dominance hierarchies. (Human evolution would go backwards if women did not improve their lives by sexually selecting mates who signal evolutionary fitness). That this process is mostly unconscious on the part of women does not make it any less real. Men and women both evolved, when looked at from a fundamental level of philosophical analysis, to survive. We do this in ways that are not better or worse than each other, but which are unique to our sex. Men and women, then, are the same species but we are, unsurprisingly, different in multiple ways.

Advances in psychological statistical analysis have allowed us to understand these differences. Big Five personality traits reveal that individual men and women are broadly the same, but paradoxically, at the margins of our psychology, at the extremes, we have separate tastes, likes, and inclinations. And while we share common traits, it’s at the group level and not as individuals that the difference between the sexes is most noticeable. In other words, if we could create a generic man or woman, with psychological traits at the group level, he or she would be a starkly different psychological creature to the other sex.

Women, for example, are more agreeable than men. They’re nicer, in other words. This makes evolutionary sense because being agreeable when you’re physically weaker in a world of potentially predatory males is strategically intelligent. Small and smart ultimately defeats big and stupid everyday. Women, though, are also more neurotic, which means, in the language of psychology, that women respond negatively to the everyday trauma of life more than men. Again this is linked to survival. If you’re scanning the horizon for danger and a man is defending you, who he is and what he is thinking is vitally important to your health. At a risk of generalisation, it’s why women, in contrast to men, are more likely to forgive sexual infidelity but not emotional infidelity. Love, for female survival, is more powerful than sex.

To put this another way, women were bound until recently in human history, both existentially and biologically, to the men in their lives. It’s only with the advent of capitalism and the creation of the contraceptive pill, which have freed women from privation and biology respectively, that women have been able to influence politics and culture in overt and consistent ways, simply because these were traditionally male spaces due to material and existential necessity. Without men doing the hard and dangerous tasks in the past, women would die. (This is still true, but decades of feminist activism have made the subject off limits in civilised debate). A division of labour developed organically between the sexes across historical time and geographical region. This benefited both sexes in the never-ending battle against privation and an indifferent natural world.

The aeons of evolutionary time in which women looked to men for their survival has left a psychological imprint on the female subconscious. Women deem men responsible, because throughout history this was as universally true as the theory of gravity, for their material, sexual, and psychological wellbeing. The subconscious impulse in women has not been erased by feminist propaganda. Neither has it become diluted due to how successful liberal democracy and capitalism are in equalising the human world. This feminine psychological impulse, though, in the modern world manifests in ways that are often not conducive to societal wellbeing. Leopards, to say it in the vernacular, can’t change their spots, and, even if they could, it wouldn’t happen overnight. Evolution, as the saying goes, is not just from the neck down.

For the first time in human history, a confluence of factors has led to a situation where men cannot, because it’s technologically and economically impossible, compete with the material conditions of life and, hence, with each other to attract a mate. Life is too good, in other words, for our evolved psychology. We’re still geared towards life on the savannah. Women’s proclivity to mate upwards, allied with their subconscious belief that men are responsible for female wellbeing, together with the material benefits of capitalism and the equalising effects of liberal democracy, have led to a situation where a fateful confrontation between the sexes is inevitable.

Women, to put this in simple terms, are evaluating men in a way that was conducive to survival in a world that no longer exists. An economic, cultural, and political endpoint has been reached and men are wedged, face-first and nose bent, against an immovable glass ceiling. There’s nothing men can do anymore to prove their fitness to attract a mate. The female proclivity to mate upwards has plateaued because of economic equality, but the female psychological impulse remains as potent as ever, which manifests as female rage against men who women subconsciously, ironically and foolishly believe, if you listen to feminist rhetoric, are responsible for their happiness and survival. Heidegger, to put this in other terms, said that ‘language is the house of being’. You don’t need to subscribe to his philosophy to see that he is onto something, even if it’s just a provisional truth, but listen to how women casually talk about their expectations of men and you’ll see the subconscious become reality. Ironically, one of the main claims of recent feminism is that because men are supposedly no longer needed to protect and provide for women ‘the future is female’.


THE paradox of female psychology meeting the modern world was on display recently when Brittany Higgins and Grace Tame spoke at the National Press Club. What occurred was a manifestation of female neuroticism and entitled female expectation of men, together with the genetic feminine desire for social affirmation and empathy (the sisterhood), in a toxic combination that is fatal to the maintenance of rational politics. Essentially it was peak feminism, the result of decades of privileging female virtues and the downgrading of female vices, while holding men to the exact opposite standard. It was also, more importantly, peak feminine herd psychology.

One result of this metaphysics, in full display and cheered on by the overwhelmingly female Press Club audience, was the idea that women are never responsible for their own choices; and that individual female agency is always, ultimately, the responsibility of men (by commission or omission), even if females use their free will. This can be seen and heard in the ‘Believe all Women’ mantra of modern feminism, which infantilises women and robs them of individual agency.

Both men and women are capable of bad behaviour. At the extremes of male/female psychology, especially at the group level, the lowest-common-denominator rules. With males, think Nuremberg-style rallies, bikie gangs, and soccer hooligans. In other words, violence and hyper-masculine rationalism. With women, think of mean girls, passive-aggressive virtue signalling and the privileging of feelings over logic: in other words, mindless empathy or irrationalism. Too much feminine love, to put this in context, leads to hate. Both these extreme male and female psychological states, at a societal level, are toxic to notions of universal justice and individual dignity.

To put this bluntly, it is not men who need to change but women’s unrealistic expectations of men in the modern world. This should be the generational task of the silent majority of women who do not share the extreme, hyper-ideological and unjust philosophy of a small band of feminists, who, for all the reasons I’ve outlined above, have introduced a toxicity to relations between the sexes that is fatal to our shared humanity.

Men and women need each other. We can’t live without each other. In fact, the world would be a flat, barren, and ultimately an unliveable place if either of the sexes entirely dominated the other. Neither extreme feminine vices nor extreme masculine ones should have any place in a civilised society. The pendulum must swing back to the centre. In other words, normal women need to take back control of both the narrative and our institutions to foil ongoing feminist overreach.

22 thoughts on “What Women Want, What Men Need

  • Dallas Beaufort says:

    Oh, that now common word, Hate and Mate, flippant.

  • Elizabeth Beare says:

    I think I am pretty much a normal woman, so I’ll start off early. Currently there is a thirty-six year old woman sueing a $5000 dating site for not coming up with the ordered goods: she wants Aussie heritage, a six footer at least, placed upwards in a career hierarchy and with funds enough to provide for her expected children. Oh and she wanted him to be a charmer as well, capable of sparring intellectually with her while being a loving shoulder to cry on. Well, that’s more or less what we all want, which is why romance novels sell so well.
    Strangely, for our lady booked into Elite Singles, it seems all the good ones were already taken. This sad lady is what Grace and Brittany and those they influence are going to turn into in another ten years as they chew through the dating and marriage years with a slew of ‘not good enough for them’ relationships. The demands they, and the contemporary social and economic world, place upon men are thoroughly unrealistic. The attribute lists were always idealisations. They have become all the more so with their ‘male-feminist’ added frills to which no man in his right mind ever seriously subscribes.
    What has changed is that most women in the past have been sensible enough, and humane enough, and loving enough, to settle from what they knew was a limited social circle for just looking at a guy one day and thinking, he’s so cute when he looks like that, and I love him anyway, for all his faults (lol at the Thurber above). The hormones do the rest, except when ideology has cut too deep and the internet’s siren call says ‘he’s’ still out there, the perfect man: and this leaves a Press Club full of entitled women having a very large collective whinge. Some of them will never learn. Choose well, marry young enough to have a real choice in available males, and make that marriage work by recognising the masculine differs to the feminine and that there is joy in the meeting. Jane Austen could have told them that and saved many a lot of bother.

  • pgang says:

    Thanks for the laugh.

  • pgang says:

    Sorry, that probably came across as a bit rude. Well written, but I did find it bemusing and it did make me laugh in places.

  • ChrisPer says:

    I used to consider causes like ‘ ‘mating across or up in dominance hierarchies’ as explaining a lot. A few decades of finding it too basic to explain stuff, and I added another model.
    The human species operates on not so much dominance as status hierarchies. Status separatesfrom the need to dominate physically. And there are two main status hierachies; one male and one female.
    Feminism is the proces of appropriating status and resources from what had been the male status game into the female status game.

  • Lewis P Buckingham says:

    The Higgins allegation is still before the court in the ACT.
    Watching the Press Club on the ABC I had the distinct impression of a beat up.
    Not that there should not be enormous respect for women in any place, such as the hot house of Parliament.
    But that this should be also accorded to men, especially when told in MSM that one in particular is a rapist.
    The allegation is being tested without ABC confirmed bias.
    Luckily for the accused, the High Court is still a functional reality.
    The ABC recently binned the original Milligan beat up of the Witness J allegations.
    Their appalling attack on George Pell.
    It went down the memory hole.
    This ABC documentary is part of the social history of Australia and should never be taken from us.
    It should be returned and an apology be attached from Milligan and those who created the fantasy.
    In the meanwhile the events of March 2019 will no doubt, become public.
    Whatever the outcome, perhaps the search for meaning will be productive, for the key players and the onlookers, at our ABC’s ‘meet the press’.

  • Adam J says:

    I think the fact that 90% of journalists are female is a key factor in the demise of journalism. Certainly when I took a single journalism ‘class’ (and really why is this at university?), there were 3 boys and 30 girls.
    They are heavily social creatures, less individualist, and listening to them talk to each other on the radio gives the feeling of being back at high school.

  • IainC says:

    Re numerous recent examples of angry women lashing out at innocent bystanders to vent their frustrations, it’s interesting how the more women behave in the manner attributed to toxic masculinity, the more they are respected by the left and feminist activists.

  • Alistair says:

    As usual, Oswald Spengler sussed it out a hundred years ago …

    “But the decay of the white family, the inevitable outcome of megalopolitan existence (i.e. decedent urban civilization), is spreading, and it is devouring the ‘race’ of nations. The meaning of man and wife, the will to perpetuity, is being lost. People live for themselves alone, not for future generations. The nation as society, once the organic web of families, threatens to dissolve, from the city outwards, into a sum of private atoms, of which each is intent on extracting from his own and other lives the maximum of amusement – panem et circenses. The women’s emancipation of Ibsen’s time wanted, not freedom from the husband, but freedom from the child, from the burden of children, just as men’s emancipation in the same period signified freedom from the duties towards family, nation, and State. The whole of Liberal-Socialistic problem-literature revolves about this suicide of the white race.”

  • Daffy says:

    @ Adam J. I’m with you on why is newspaper reporting ( ‘journalism’ today…used by too many of those who’ve never published in a real journal) ‘taught’ (more ironic quotes) at university. Why indeed. It, like many honourable and important activities, is a craft. Crafts are taught largely in the doing thereof. Some professions mix craft and learning in various proportions. I think of architecture: much craft and much learning, or engineering, in some respects, a bit of craft and a lot of learning. Teaching: some craft and much learning. In many cases a teacher or a ‘journalist’ needs a good BA in areas of real learning then off to a newspaper ( you know what I mean) as a cadet.

  • gareththomassport says:

    Studying medicine in the early 80’s we were instructed that medicine was both an art and a science.
    The science was concerned with anatomy and pathophysiology; the art was in the application on an individual patient basis.
    Now medicine is taught, and largely practiced as a flow chart, with the chart set out by health bureaucrats. Dissenters face re-registration.
    My advice. Avoid young doctors if at all possible and do your own research.
    Sounds similar to the other professions (including journalism, if this can be counted as a profession).

  • padraic says:

    Some women may “mate … upwards in the dominance hierarchies” but what about women who marry nohopers or absolute drop kicks? Do they feel so sorry for them that they think they can reform them? It never seems to work.

  • Elizabeth Beare says:

    No hopers and absolute drop kicks? Well, you just gotta learn early to recognise them, Padraic.
    And walk right on by.
    Although one’s better nature may come to the fore, to one’s later regret.
    Beam another one up, Scotty.

  • Geoff Sherrington says:

    If Elizabeth is “pretty much a normal woman” then I am pretty much a normal bloke., one with some questions.
    How many readers here share our family concern about TV, with ad after ad showing actors looking oriental or black, way out of proportion to their actual numbers in the Australian population? Do you see too many ads with a pretty blonde woman paired with an ugly big African American, usually unshaven, almost as if the ad was directed by some woman who was far into popular porn myths? Or ads with Australian Aborigines in nappies and paint, playing with branches and fire, as if that was meaningful? What has happened to the screen popularity of the traditional Aussie sheila and the laconic Aussie bloke? Is there an agency controlling colour content in advertising to show the virtues of inclusion? And cross-breeding?
    How simple it was, back in the 70s when this psychological nonsense was subdued, seldom studied and optional. Today, as in the 70s, theory means nothing when it comes to selection practice and the parties-about-to-couple get excited, she in a visible feminine way, he in a visible masculine way, both as old as life itself. (There, that is a whole thesis in three lines). Geoff S

  • call it out says:

    Geoff, I also get sick of the endless stream of disproportionate minorities- various feminist/gay/coloured/trans/mixed race identities thrust upon us by the PR and advertising machines. A great example of the elites forcing stuff down our throats.
    And of course that great combination, of smart woman/dumb husband/boyfriend, in everything from insurance to buying a car. Also notice that men don’t drive anymore…it’s always her behind the wheel.

  • Trevor Bailey says:

    Sexual intercourse began
    In nineteen sixty-three
    (which was rather late for me) –
    Between the end of the “Chatterley” ban
    And the Beatles’ first LP.

    Up to then there’d only been
    A sort of bargaining,
    A wrangle for the ring,
    A shame that started at sixteen
    And spread to everything.

    Then all at once the quarrel sank:
    Everyone felt the same,
    And every life became
    A brilliant breaking of the bank,
    A quite unlosable game.

    So life was never better than
    In nineteen sixty-three
    (Though just too late for me) –
    Between the end of the “Chatterley” ban
    And the Beatles’ first LP.

    Philip Larkin, ‘Annus Mirabilis’.

  • SalivatorX says:

    I stopped reading when I saw the line, “Women, for example, are more agreeable than men.”

  • robtmann7 says:

    As I read Declan’s article I found it unusually congenial while not quite stating my favourite generality: women are more concerned for emotional relationships, whereas men accord higher priority to logic and justice.

  • doconnell says:

    Under this pop evolutionary theory, as women mate upwards, what happens to all the poor male sods at the bottom?

  • simonbenson65 says:

    Sane guys with a modicum of discretion and half a brain are not attracted to feminazi women who hate men, so, in the end, evolution will just take its course and lead to men not breeding with them. I agree with Elizabeth Beare: for them, and women like them, the good ones will be all taken as they will miss the boat and end up as even angrier and more bitter old women, if they make it to old age. If one rule of the human species holds true for all, it’s that if anger and bitterness and rage are driving you now, as you get older, those traits will only dominate. As C. S. Lewis once said, you will find in the long run all that is left is ‘hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, ruin, and decay.’ I pity women like Higgins and Tame and their ilk, not because they have zero prospects now of finding Mr Right, but because, unlike my dear old Mum and Dad, they will not grow old gracefully; it’s only going to get even uglier.

  • john2 says:

    Kissinger: “No one will ever win the battle of the sexes; there’s too much fraternizing with the enemy.”

Leave a Reply