The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPeter Frost Archive
The Adaptive Value of "Aw Shucks!"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In a mixed group, women become quieter, less assertive, and more compliant. This deference is shown only to men and not to other women in the group. A related phenomenon is the sex gap in self-esteem: women tend to feel less self-esteem in all social settings. The gap begins at puberty and is greatest in the 15-18 age range (Hopcroft, 2009).

Do women learn this behavior? Why, then, do they learn it just as easily in Western societies where constraints on female behavior are much weaker and typically stigmatized?

In U.S. society most of the formal institutional constraints on women have been removed, and ideologies of the inferiority of women are publicly frowned on. Sexual jealousy is also publicly disapproved, however much private expectation there may be of the phenomenon. Resources inequalities between men and women have also been reduced, although not eradicated. Certainly, male violence against women is still a reality and may play a role promoting deference behaviors in college-aged women. However, it seems unlikely that fear of physical violence is enough to explain why young women typically defer to men when involved in non-sex typed tasks in experimental settings. (Hopcroft, 2009)

Moreover, why would this behavior be learned mainly between 15 and 18 years of age?

[...] by many measures, girls at this age in the United States are doing objectively better than boys — they get better grades, have fewer behavioral and disciplinary problems, and are more likely to go to college than boys (Fisher 1999: 82). Qualitative studies also show the decline in female confidence and certainty at adolescence (Brown and Gilligan 1992). Brown and Gilligan’s (1992) study was done in an elite private girls’ school among girls who were likely to have every opportunity in life. Why would their self confidence be eroded at puberty? Certainly, there are few differences in resources between teenage boys and girls. Brown and Gilligan (1992) argue that our sexist culture strikes at girls during puberty, stripping girls of their self esteem. It seems odd that our patriarchal culture should wait until that precise moment to ensnare girls. (Hopcroft, 2009)

Female self-esteem seems to be hormonally influenced. It declines at puberty, reaches its lowest levels in late adolescence, gradually increases during adulthood, and peaks after menopause.

[...] evidence from many cultures [shows that] post-menopausal women often enjoy a status equal to that of men: they become in effect “honorary men.” [...] Even in the most gender restrictive societies they are freed from menstrual taboos and purdah, often begin to inherit property and acquire wealth, and in general have increased freedom, status, power and influence in society. A recent experimental study of influence in small groups showed that older women (50 and older) do not defer to older men, and that older men do not display lack of deference to older women. (Hopcroft, 2009)

Female deference varies not only over a woman’s lifetime but also from one woman to the next, i.e., some women are more predisposed than others. This variability may exist for one or more reasons:

- Not enough time has elapsed for selection to remove contrary predispositions (non-deference) from the gene pool.

- The selection pressure is relatively weak: contrary predispositions appear through mutation as fast as they are removed through selection.

- The strength or weakness of selection may vary among human populations. Gene flow may reintroduce contrary predispositions from populations where the selection pressure against them is relatively weak.

- There may be frequency-dependent selection. Non-deferring women may be better liked when less common.

Sexual selection?

For all these reasons, evolutionary psychologist Rosemary Hopcroft (2009) argues that female deference is an innate predisposition and not a learned behavior. It has become so widespread because deferential women have been better at survival and reproduction via sexual selection. When women compete on the mate market, success goes to the more deferential ones.

One might point out that deferential behavior would be advantageous not only at the time of mating but also later—during pregnancy and infant care. So, strictly speaking, the selection pressure wouldn’t be just sexual selection.

But Hopcroft’s argument is vulnerable to a more serious objection: sexual selection of females is the exception and not the rule in most animal species, especially mammals. The males are the ones that have to compete for mates. This reflects differing contributions to procreation, the female being saddled with the tasks of pregnancy, nursing, and early infant care. Meanwhile, the male is usually free to go back on the mate market, with the result that mateable males outnumber mateable females at any one time.

Hopcroft knows this but argues that the human species is a special case because “human fathers often invest heavily in their children.” But often they don’t. What about societies where men do very little to raise their offspring? This point doesn’t disprove Hopcroft’s argument. In fact, it may provide a way to prove it, i.e., female deference should be stronger where paternal investment is higher.

If we look at hunter-gatherers, paternal investment tends to follow a north-south cline. It’s low in the tropical zone where women gather food year-round and can thus provide for themselves and their children with little male assistance. It’s higher farther away from the equator, where winter limits food gathering and makes women dependent on food that men provide through hunting. Paternal investment is highest in the Arctic: almost all food is provided by men and women specialize in tasks unrelated to food procurement (garment making, shelter building, meat processing).

This north-south cline was maintained and in some cases accentuated when hunting and gathering gave way to farming. In the tropical zone, farming developed out of female food gathering and thus became women’s work, as is still the case in sub-Saharan Africa and Papua New Guinea. This sexual division of labor also explains why tropical farmers preferred to domesticate plants for food production. Only one animal species, the guinea fowl, has been domesticated in sub-Saharan Africa, and it was apparently domesticated by women. All other forms of livestock have come from elsewhere.

How universal is female deference?

Female deference should therefore vary within our species. In particular, it should correlate with the degree of paternal investment in offspring and, relatedly, the intensity of female-female competition for mates. This doesn’t mean that women are actually more deferential in societies where men are providers. It simply means that they create an impression of deference, while continuing to do much of the real decision-making.

This issue is sidestepped by Hopcroft, who speaks only of ‘women’ and ‘men’—as if all human groups show the same pattern of female deference. She cites many studies to prove her point, but this literature is overwhelmingly based on Euro-American or European participants. There is one study on African Americans, but it was limited to boys and girls 11 to 14 years old (Weisfeld et al., 1982).

In fact, this presumed universality of female deference was already disproven by a study published two years earlier:

Much feminist literature has described the relative silence of girls in classrooms and a concomitant drop in self-esteem for girls in their early teens (Sadker & Sadker, 1994; American Association of University Women, 1992). But other work has noted that Black girls maintain their self-esteem and their classroom “voice” into adolescence despite the fact that they may feel neglected in education (Orenstein, 1994; Taylor et al., 1995). (Morris, 2007)

Over a period of two years, Morris (2007) studied African American girls in grades 7 and 9 of an American middle school referred to as “Mathews.” The students were 46% African American and the teachers two-thirds African American.

He found that African American girls seemed to feel little inhibition in the presence of boys:

Indeed, at Matthews I often observed girls—particularly Black girls—dominating classroom discussion.

[...] I noticed this active participation of girls to a greater extent in English classrooms, particularly when, as in this example, the subject concerned gender issues or relationships. However, the topic in this example also concerned computers and technology, areas more commonly dominated by boys. Furthermore, girls at Matthews, especially Black girls, spoke out to ask and answer questions in science and math classes as well, although to a lesser extent than in English and history classes. This willingness of African American girls to compete and stand up to others also emerged in their non-academic interactions with boys.

[...] Black girls at Matthews often challenged physical contact initiated by boys by hitting and chasing them back. They did not yield to and accept this behavior from boys, nor did they tend to seek adult authority to protect themselves and punish the boys.

[...] Thus, most African American girls in my observations did not hesitate to speak up in classrooms, and stand up to boys physically. Few Black girls I observed created disruptions in classrooms, but most consistently competed with boys and other girls to gain teachers’ positive attentions.

[..] I observed this outspokenness at Matthews. Black girls there appeared less restrained by the dominant, White middle-class view of femininity as docile and compliant, and less expectant of male protection than White girls in other educational research.

These observations were consistent with those of the teachers, who generally described African American girls as being confrontational, loud, and unladylike:

Teachers, particularly women, often scolded Black girls for supposedly subverting their authority in the classroom.

[...] By far the most common description and criticism of African American girls by all teachers at Matthews was that they were too “loud.”

[...] For many adults at Matthews, the presumed loud and confrontational behavior of African American girls was viewed as a defect that compromised their very femininity. This emerged most clearly in educators castigating Black girls to behave like “ladies.”

Morris attributed this behavioral pattern to America’s history of slavery and race relations. It would be useful to examine comparable data from sub-Saharan Africa. Do African women show less deference to men in mixed-gender settings?

According to a study of Akan society in Ghana, wives traditionally deferred to their husbands, but such deference was less common than in European society because social interactions were less frequent between husband and wife, being limited to certain areas of family life:

Traditional norms stipulated, for example, that the wife should not eat with the husband; that she alone must carry the foodstuffs from the farm; take water for the husband to the bathroom; sweep the compound; do the cooking; clean her husband’s penis after sexual intercourse; and show deference to him in speech and action. (van der Geest, 1976)

Husbands and wives seldom made decisions jointly:

Joint decision-making is believed to be a departure from the past when decisions were made in a much more autocratic way by the husband alone or when spouses decided over their own matters separately (van der Geest, 1976).

A very different picture existed in mixed-gender settings outside family life. In the community, African women of all ages showed little deference to men, the situation being similar to that of older women in European societies.

Despite these outward rules, however, women held considerable power and commanded wide respect. They played a role in traditional politics and religion and were nearly always economically independent of their husbands. Moreover, women enjoyed a high degree of freedom to enter and to terminate marital unions, and in the matrilineal society of the Akan they were the focal points of descent lines. (van der Geest, 1976)

It is unclear to what degree modernization has changed these social dynamics. Van der Geest (1976) found much interest among younger Akan in the European model of family life, i.e., husband and wife eating and socializing together, and making decisions together. His own study, however, failed to find a significant difference between older and younger Akan in this respect. He concluded that the elite were moving toward European models of behavior, but not the majority of the population:

There are indications that—contrary to the situation in elite circles—marriage in lower socioeconomic groups remains an institution of secondary importance. Spouses have relatively low expectations of their marriage partners and of marriage in general. Men are often reluctant or unable to provide sufficient financial support for their families, and not infrequently women bear the burden of parenthood alone. [...] Wives remain more attached to their families of origin than to their partners, and in almost half of all cases husband and wife do not even constitute a residential unit. The relatively low status of marriage in Kwahu is perhaps best reflected in the high incidence of divorce and extramarital sex. (van der Geest, 1976)

This is consistent with findings from other studies. The pair bond is relatively weak in sub-Saharan Africa. Husband and wife tend to feel greater attachment to their respective kin. The husband is more certain that his sister’s offspring are his blood relatives, whereas the wife sees her mother, sisters, and other female relatives as more reliable sources of child care.

Poewe found in her fieldwork that the marriage institution was highly flexible and discouraged strong, intense, or lasting solidarity between husband and wife. The male in these matrilineal societies did not produce for his progeny or for himself, but usually for a matrician with whom he might or might not reside. His role, as husband, was to sexually satisfy and impregnate his wife and to take care of her during her pregnancies, but under no circumstances should a man be the object of “exclusive emotional investment or focus of attention. Instead, women are socialized to invest their emotions and material wealth in their respective matrilineages.”(Saidi, 2010, p. 16).

For this reason, European outsiders see parental neglect of children where Africans see no neglect at all—simply another system of child care. As Africans move to other parts of the world, they tend to recreate the African marriage system in their host countries by using local people and institutions as “surrogate kin.” This is the case in England, where young African couples often place their children in foster homes:

The foster parents interpret the infrequent visiting of their wards’ “real” parents as signs of parental neglect and become strongly attached to the foster children. This sometimes results in legal suits for transfer of custody to the foster parents (Ellis 1977). Meanwhile, the African parents make no comparable assumption that the delegation of care means they have surrendered formal rights in children. They consider that by having made safe and reliable arrangements for the care of children and by regular payment of fees, they are dispatching their immediate responsibility. (Draper, 1989, p.164)

In recent years, there has been much talk of an “adoption crisis” in Africa, where millions of children are not being raised by both parents and thus purportedly need to be placed in Western homes. Yet this situation is far from new. In fact, it’s unavoidable in a culture where women cannot count on male assistance and have to make other arrangements:

In most African communities, the concept of “adoption” does not exist in the western sense. Children are fostered, a prevalent, culturally sanctioned procedure whereby natal parents allow their children to be reared by adults other than the biological parent[35][36]. Child fostering is a reciprocal arrangement and contributes to mutually recognised benefits for both natal and fostering families[37]. In Tanzania, less than one quarter of children being fostered by relatives other than their biological parent were orphans. (Foster and Williamson, 2000).


Evolutionary psychologists believe that all human populations share the same genetic influences on behavior. They defend this belief by pointing to the complexity of behavior and the presumably long time it would take for corresponding genetic influences to evolve coherently from scratch. But why do they have to evolve from scratch? Evolution usually proceeds through minor modifications to what already exists. This is no less true for genetic determinants of behavior. For instance, an innate mental algorithm may be partially or completely deactivated. Or its range of targets may be broadened. Or it may deactivate more slowly with increasing age.

To the extent that human groups differ genetically in mental makeup, the differences are not due to some groups having completely new mental algorithms. Instead, the differences are due to the same algorithms being modified in various ways, often subtly so. For example, learning is primarily an infant behavior that becomes more difficult with increasing age. People may differ in learning capacity not because their learning algorithms differ but because these algorithms remain fully active for a longer time in some people than in others.

Another example may be female deference. In early modern humans, women tended to feel deferential in the presence of men, but this tendency was weak because a woman’s interactions with her husband were infrequent and less important for her survival and the survival of her children. This is still the case in human groups that never left the tropical zone.

As humans spread beyond the tropics, this behavioral tendency became more easily triggered, particularly during the ages of 15 to 18 when young women entered the mate market. This evolutionary change came about because women in non-tropical environments were more dependent on men for food, particularly in winter. Women were, so to speak, in a weaker bargaining position than men, first of all on the mate market and later during pregnancy and infant care.


Brown, L.M., and C. Gilligan. (1992). Meeting at the Crossroads: Women’s Psychology and Girls’ Development, Harvard University Press.

Draper, P. (1989). African marriage systems: Perspectives from evolutionary ecology, Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 145-169.

Fisher, H. (1999). The First Sex, Random House.

Foster, G., and J. Williamson. (2000). A review of current literature of the impact of HIV/AIDS on children in sub-Saharan Africa,AIDS 2000, 14: S275-S284.

Hopcroft, R.L. (2009). Gender inequality in interaction – An evolutionary account, Social Forces, 87, 1-28.

Morris, E.W. (2007). “Ladies” or “Loudies”? Perceptions and experiences of black girls in classrooms, Youth & Society, 20, 1-26.

Saidi, C. (2010). Women’s Authority and Society in Early East-Central Africa, University of Rochester Press.

van der Geest, S. (1976). Role relationships between husband and wife in rural Ghana, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 572-578.

Weisfeld, C.C., G.E. Weisfeld, and J.W. Callaghan. (1982). Female inhibition in mixed-sex competition among young adolescents,Ethology and Sociobiology, 3, 29-42.

(Republished from Evo and Proud by permission of author or representative)
Hide 45 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Mr. Frost,

    Congratulations on another excellent article. Two passages seem to have errors (or I’m missing something, which is always a possibility):

    (1) “female deference should be stronger where paternal investment is lower” Actually, the text seems to imply just the opposite, i.e., “female deference should be stronger where paternal investment is higher” (e.g., in Northern Europe)

    (2) “social interactions were less infrequent between husband and wife”. Again, the text seems to imply just the opposite, i.e., “social interactions were more infrequent (in Ghana) between husband and wife (than in Europe)


  2. Thanks! I’ve notified Ron about these two errors. (which are wholly mine).

  3. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    There seems to be a kind of paradox here.

    What seems like lack of self-esteem is really driven by self-esteem.
    And what looks like deference is really a demand for preference, i.e. demand to be noticed, admired, and loved.

    It’s like how a cat acts. It acts so weak, mews, makes baby-like sounds, purrs, and etc. It seems lacking in self-esteem as it acts so gentle before the master, but it is actually working on the master’s emotions to be the center of attention and affection. It is partly an act, even if unwitting on the cat’s part. The cat is saying, ‘drop everything and show me all the love in the world, make me the center of your affection.’

    When women are young, they are sort of nervous and unsure cuz they’re just coming into maturity.
    But they are also feeling very narcissistic. Every young woman wants to be seen and admired as ‘hot stuff’. Her self-esteem is tied to how much men admire her. And she knows or intuitively senses that men are attracted to women who are feminine, who have the soft touch, and etc. Some men may prefer more exciting women, but even they have to have some feminine touch.
    So, even though it may look like deference on the outside, it is a kind of trick to make the men feel their share of deference to her by alluring them to her looks and feminine guile.
    Paradoxically, a woman gains power over a man by making herself come across as powerless and damsel-like. By acting soft, she makes herself to appealing to him, and the guy becomes smitten with her gentle feminine qualities. He comes under her spell.


    Consider TWILIGHT. You see how Bella acts so nervous and helpless before Edward. She confesses that her life is in his hands. He can kill her and devour her or he can protect her and love her. And her soft touch totally drives him nuts and makes him love her even more. If she acted like a crazy biatch, he might have been turned off. So, her powerless act actually made her gain power over him. He feels it is his duty to protect her from everything.

    And consider all the femme fatales in Film Noirs. They pretend to be helpless, but in doing so, they lure the men into their web.
    Now, in the case of Rachel in BLADE RUNNER, she wasn’t putting on an act. She wasn’t trying to pull some mind-trick on Deckard. But her soft-helpless-damsel act did have power over him, and he became willing to go to the end of the world to save her.
    In contrast, Deckard was just happy to blow away the other two replicant women who were just out to kick his arse. And it’s not just about practicality of security and protection. The woman’s self-esteem comes from the kind of man she can catch in her web. Women wanna be seen with the best kind of man.

    Women are vain. And their sexual nature is to be gotten than to get. Even when they get, they wanna feel gotten.
    Suppose there’s a rich powerful woman who can attract lots of men. Would that be enough? No. If she feels that SHE got herself a man, it won’t be as satisfying as feeling that HE got her. She wants to feel hunted and conquered by the man than the other way around.

    Take THE FOUNTAINHEAD the movie. Dominique Francon(Patricia Neal) has the riches and the looks. She can get any man. But she feels no satisfaction with any of them. She wants to feel gotten by a man who is beyond her power to get. She wants to be won, conquered, and owned by a god-man. And that is why she gets all woozy over Howard Roark.

    Imagine a young woman in a room with some guy named Howard Roark and Coward Dork. Suppose Howard is tall, strong, dynamic, and assertive, whereas Coward is short, nebbish, shy, and timid.
    When the young woman is with Howard, she feels woozy and helpless. When she’s with Coward, she feels confident and in-control.
    Now, which company will she prefer? To be in the company of alpha Howard(who makes her feel powerless and weak in the knees) or beta Coward(who makes her feel powerful and steely in her spine)?
    If we could separate her being from her sexuality, she might prefer Coward cuz she would have control over him. But a woman cannot deny her sexual nature, and a woman’s sexual nature is to be attracted to a man of power greater than hers.

    So, is this lack of self-esteem and deference on her part? In a way, but it is also a path to a uniquely female self-esteem and confidence/mastery. Female sexual self-esteem is bound to being attractive to the top dog. She feels proud to belong to a Real Man. Also, she feels confidence in having woven a web around him and making him belong to her and her alone. She feels special in having conquered the eyeballs and other balls of the superior man.

    Male nature being what it is, a man’s ultimate happiness comes from being on top. He is the king, the lord.
    Consider the ending of THE FOUNTAINHEAD with the skyscraper. d
    Much earlier when Howard and Dominique first met, it was the archetypal mythic image of the hero looking up at the goddess-figure. He is below, she is above. He is a lowly laborer albeit with big dreams. She is a daughter of a rich man and has all kinds of privileges. She lives the dream life.

    But he wants to be master of the world, and her real desire is to be conquered and belong to the master of the world.
    At the end, Howard the hero triumphs and he’s building the tallest skyscraper in the world and he, the great mortal, is standing on top… and the goddess ascends to him from below. (The most rapturous moment in cinema?)

    So, alpha male is to rule over all, and alpha female is to belong to the man who rules over all. In a way, it is deference on the part of the woman, but it is also a female kind of dominance because she has lured and ensnared the heart of the bestest man. He rules her and owns her body, but she owns his heart and soul.

    Consider what little Mary does to little George in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE.
    In a way, Mary seems to lack self-esteem and defer to George.
    And she is smitten with him. But then, the other side of her self-esteem is all about her indomitable will-power to win his heart and keep him for herself.
    In her case, she doesn’t care if George become rich and powerful. There is something about him that appeals to her more than any other man does. Sam Wainwright is fated to become richer and more privileged, but Mary wants to be with George because he’s a natural leader. She senses he is naturally superior and only got stuck in Bedford Falls due to circumstances. Even with nothing, he is more of a man than a man with all the riches in the world.

    It was the same way with Dominique Francon with Howard Roark in THE FOUNTAINHEAD. When they first met, he didn’t have diddly squat. He was a nothing and a nobody. But she could sense a quality in him: good looks, manliness, and a searing intelligence. In contrast, many rich men she knew in life didn’t interest her. They had economic power or were on the career path but lacked the stuff of magic, the combination of looks, charisma, personality.
    Dominique senses his natural greatness so much that she is willing to give up all her privilege and live a modest life with him just to be by his greatness that just beams from his presence:

    The scene when little Mary whispers into George’s ear is kinda cute but in a way a kind of darkly beautiful scene. On the surface, it’s must a girl making a puppy love wish, but as we later find out, her love for George from the start was very deep and real, not just some cutesy childish fancy.
    And even though George doesn’t hear what she said — he’s deaf in one ear –, it’s as if his soul spiritually heard her cuz his life becomes entwined with hers. And the wish was both a blessing and a curse cuz he finds true meaning through her but also becomes stuck to family life and obligations that prevent him from becoming someone like Howard Roark who conquers the world.

    (Of course, if Ayn Rand was whispering to him, she would have spoken into the ear that could hear and told him to drop everything and go do his great stuff and hell with altruism for people of the small town. Hers was a radicalized form of Americanism where individual ambition is all that matters.)
    George and Mary meet up later when older and they again make a wish by throwing stones at a old abandoned house. Again, her wish remains deaf to him, but we know what it is. She wants George to be with her even if it means his big dreams won’t come true. In one way, she seems to be deferring to George all throughout the movie, but she really wants him and her self-esteem is bound to winning him.

    Anyway, after little Mary whispers “I’ll love you til the day I day”, George says he’s gonna grow up to have a couple of harems and two or three wives.
    He’s an alpha male alright. He has the qualities that could have lots of girls and have lots of fun.
    And that is what attracts her about him, except she wants to have him all for herself.
    So, a woman wants a man who could have all the women in the world just for herself.
    And to win that man, she has to show some degree of feminine deference to hook his heart.

    Deference is different from timidity and mousiness that don’t appeal to a man. Deference is a kind of emotional game where you seem to show respect and admiration to get/win something in return. It’s like Michael Corleone defers to Hyman Roth in THE GODFATHER II to gain something. Deference could mean simple-minded obedience, but it could also be strategic. You defer to someone to get something from him. It’s a way of buttering up the person.

    A mousy woman hides in her own space. A ‘deferent’ woman may be using her wiles, smiles, and guiles to lure a man of power whom she desires. It is a way of catching him by having him catch her.
    Some people use the soft approach merely to accept the inferior status. But others use the soft approach to ease into possession of the object of their fascination/desire.
    A dog defers to the master in its happiness to be inferior. But a cat plays soft with the master to gain mastery over him/her. A cat, after all, always has its own agenda.

    So, we need to distinguish between dog-women who defer in happy acceptance of inferiority and cat-women who play at deference in sneaky attention of what they really want. And if a top man conquers her and owns her, she owns him too cuz he’s now smitten with her.

    Socially, she may be junior partner, a princess to the prince, but they are together aristocrats way above all the peasants and peons, male and female.
    A queen is lower than a king, but she is above everyone else.

    Also, given female nature, her true happiness comes from finding the man who can conquer and possess her. Consider Brunnhilde. She was one badass Valkyrie and sad to lose her power, but she finds the greatest happiness when she is saved/conquered by Siegfried. She belongs to him, but he also belongs to her because feminine power over a man is something that defies the usual game of power. Male power is usually about “I kicked his ass” and “I sacked everything real good.” And of course, beaskly men can find pleasure in rape and plunder.
    But when a man falls for a woman of special beauty and charm, he feels himself in the presence of a power that defies the usual dynamics. Siegfried the fearless — he didn’t even fear a giant dragon — feels fear for the first time when he meets Brunnhilde. He feels emotions that are more than about arggghh.
    Or consider EXCALIBUR. Initially, Uther is all about kicking butt and raping.
    But the fool really falls in love with Igraine and feels something he’d never felt before when he sees her with his baby. She and the kid have a power over him that makes him want to be more than a brute.

    Ideally, a woman wants a man who has it all: looks, brains, strength, ability, personality, charisma, integrity, values. But as it turns out, most men have some prized traits while having little or none of the other. A woman may feel dreamy for the guy with the looks, feel piqued by the guy with brains, feel hot with the guy with muscle, feel alive with the guy with personality. She is drawn to something about them all and may use her deferential strategy to get something out of them.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    , @Seck
  4. Pat Casey says:

    Mr. Frost wins! Finally I come across the crux of the matter as it seems to me stated correctly. Though I hasten to add, the conclusion I’ll refer to appears by my reading only to be implied, and if I’m jumping to that conclusion then probably the error is mine, an error that may or may not suggest there’s room on the point to tighten the text.

    Female deference should therefore vary within our species. In particular, it should correlate with the degree of paternal investment in offspring and, relatedly, the intensity of female-female competition for mates. This doesn’t mean that women are actually more deferential in societies where men are providers. It simply means that they create an impression of deference, while continuing to do much of the real decision-making.

    That men compete and women pick seems to be taken for granted by human nature realists universally. But it seems impossible to describe in a logical way how it happens that women secure the power to decide on the man by displaying their deference; when women are dependant on men they make them invest more by deferring to them; we are supposed to imagine that men compete to win the deferential woman, whose pivotal act of deference is consenting to marry the one she desires. None of these formulations do a justice, though I don’t know how to be more generous.

    Obviously, a human relationship cannot actually be a paradox. So the paradox is reduced to the self-deception of men and the feminine wiles of women: “This doesn’t mean that women are actually more deferential in societies where men are providers. It simply means that they create an impression of deference, while continuing to do much of the real decision-making.” However, there is a way to escape the paradox without imputing such motives that can only be asserted, and that explicates the matter more elegantly as well.

    “Female deference correlates with the intensity of female-female competition for mates.” To wit, the men are not competing for the sincerely deferential woman, the sincerely deferential women are competing for them, and they are the established men of means who are given providers, the alphas. Properly speaking, these men pick the woman they want to marry, and would be proposing marriage to like an offer more than an ask. These are not the women who generally manipulate their self-deceiving husbands (that is, until they hit menopause) because he might only be as loyal as she deserves.

    Basically, the rest of the women get married to the variable betas, whose level of self-deception seems to be more or less, but generally not on account of any false-mask of deference the woman ever wore. Seems to me universally true that women find it excruciatingly irksome and often impossible to feign a deferential respect to men they are quite not sure about. Same as it always was that way, so that the women who used to marry the men they never much engaged in talk are today the women who don’t talk to they men the don’t marry.

    Hence the crux of the matter: female deference differs within society, because which sex competes for which differs depending on male status. The confusion this refutes is not just that males only ever compete for mates, but the very current and crude concept being shoved around by these pick-up artists of artifice, who confect some historical precedent for how they go about attracting a mate. By affecting the demeanor of an alpha they claim to make the woman sincerely deferential. Except the trick requires outcompeting the field in very small and subtle ways, so that it’s truer to say the woman chooses to believe the PUA has won than to say the PUA chooses the one he wants. Thus they strain a basically clear conception between which sex competes for which, and distract from their conceptual straining by insisting that getting laid makes them alphas. Well, I guess there is a whole world waiting to see if these guys can actually become what they claim to have attained, and get a prize to give them marriage. Which is to say, no one in the world could possibly believe the self-delusions of men who admit their category of deceptions so deliberately.

  5. Jim says:

    Very interesting blog.

  6. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The decline of cities like Detroit, Memphis and Birmingham as their populations have become majority African-American has often been ascribed to differences between African and Caucasian IQs and to differences in frequencies of MAOA alleles. Another difference of possible causal significance is the level of deference shown by females to males. African-American females are far less easy-going and less likely to make the kind of compromises that would be necessary to maintain a nuclear family. One can argue that this racial difference is really the critical one, and that IQ and MAOA alleles would not be civilizationally crippling if there were intact families. The collective behavior of the Meztizo immigrants appears to support this line of argument, as their women are more deferential and their families are stronger.

  7. Modern white Western women are becoming more masculine and more African-like. The high Openness whites of Western Europe have taken Feminism further than any other culture, and the women have adopted positions of power moreso in this society than any other. In many ways, high Openness whites enjoy adopting the lifestyle patterns of pre-civilized people, for whatever reason. On the flip side, Asian women remain (relatively) demure and deferential.

    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
  8. Women are more manipulative. Perhaps their regardful behavior is an opening ploy for manipulation.

    I certainly don’t take interest in bossy women.

  9. @Lion of the Judah-sphere

    yes, western white women are very powerful today, due to the welfare state, female (pseudo) work participation etc. But in the end they use this power and freedom to arrange a situation in which they pair with subsaharan African or muslim males, thus they put themselves back into an situation where the show deference etc.

    • Replies: @Wally
  10. “But other work has noted that Black girls maintain their self-esteem and their classroom “voice” into adolescence despite the fact that they may feel neglected in education”
    his quote from the Morris paper from 2007 shows a typical phenomena for modern social sciences. Formal institutions get overrated regarding their importance while informal institutions get neglected.
    In the quote it is implied that educational success in terms of grades etc. could have a big impact on the self esteem of youths.
    Meanwhile in reality I would say out of the total experience of “school” for youths grades are jut one minor factor. More important is the experience of physical differences, especially physical strength differences, aggression and surrender in everyday social interactions., even the olfactory experience.

  11. Leftist conservative [AKA "radical_centrist"] says: • Website

    female deference is an obstacle to growing the supply of workers in america.

    Big Business wants women to compete against men in the labor supply. That lowers wages and increases the sales of consumer goods.

    But women need to be psychologically prepped and programmed to be assertive.

    That is why the media, hollywood, govt, academia etc all push feminism.

    Feminism is a tool of Capital to increase the supply of labor, thus depressing wages, increasing sales and increasing corporate profits.

    You feed feminism into the minds of young white men and women in school, and after a few years of that, the natural and instinctive female deference has been psychologically overcome, and both young men and young women seek women as fit and proper to compete against males in the workplace.

    Biology has thus been overcome in the name of increased corporate profits.

  12. I’ve always suspected that the decline of female self-esteem in adsolescence could at least in part be explained by the sex differences in physical development during that period. Children revel in physical play and interaction. Suddeenly in adolescence the boys become bigger and much stronger and more agile. Meanwhile girls put on fat instead of muscle, develop floppy breasts, big hips and asses, and even more pronounced knockknees than in childhood. The boys they once beat up have suddenly become capable of turning them into involuntary sex objects. To top it all off they’re suddeenly constrained by hormonal fluctuations that for many make one week every month or so a living hell. The same hormones turn female society of competitors for male favor just as boys are forming the kind of male-bonding groups that persist through adulthood. No wonder girls become depressed.

  13. Fred Reed says:

    To this lay observer, deference seems proportional to dependence, and changes too rapidly to be genetic. In 1930, women in America needed a husband to live decently, so they were deferential and agreeable, this being a large part of femininity. Now they can live without men and do not fear their strength, so they are more combative and hostile. Thus feminism. Thus the strong tendency of American men to complain of the lack of feminine women in the US and their attraction to Thais, Mexicans, Viets, and other women of the tropical world where deference is the norm. That is, the north-south cline seems to be deference to the south, lack of it to the north.

    The apparent impossibility of measuring selective pressure and correlating it with results, f = ma, and the tendency to attribute traits to genes whose existence is inferred from the traits, lends a metaphysical quality to these discussions, which resemble debates between economists more than science.

    It seems to me, as one who has lived widely abroad, that there are in a sense only two races, blacks and everybody else. I don’t know how I would prove it, and yet to my admittedly superficial gaze blacks do not seem to behave like other peoples of the same latitudes.

  14. astro boy says:
    @Fred Reed

    I greatly appreciate your willingness to call foul when these HBD arguments do get a metaphysical quality to them. I do think they are on to something, but they need to learn to stop arguing like it is metaphysic.

    • Replies: @Sean
  15. Leftist conservative [AKA "radical_centrist"] says: • Website
    @Fred Reed

    female deference can be seen all over the animal kingdom…. female mammals are mounted…and thus submissiveness is often required.

  16. helena says:
    @Fred Reed

    “It seems to me, as one who has lived widely abroad, that there are in a sense only two races, blacks and everybody else. ”

    Everything is interpretation. When I first looked at haplogroups, the transition from African to Asian stood out to me. But then when I started reading gene-blogs it became apparent that that interpretation was false. But what exactly did happen between C and F? And between L and M. And why did it happen somewhere on the coast of South Asia, before going inland? And why are Europeans and others called Cauc-Asians?

  17. guest says:
    @Fred Reed

    “a metaphysical quality to these discussions, which resemble debates between economists more than science”

    To be fair supposedly hard sciences like physics fall into metaphysics all the time. How else to explain the nonsense that is string theory and the mess particle physics has become. (The “God particle”? Seriously?) I don’t know what kind of science we should be sticking to, anyway. Evolutionary biology is harder than economics, surely, but not all that hard. Certainly internet discussions of it don’t stay on some lofty plain high above the dregs of economics.

    The subject seems to me to stray into various fields on its own, for instance sociology, history, politics, etc. What would constitute an un-metaphysical discussion? I have no idea.

  18. Art says:

    Cold weather requires cooperation – cooperation develops the division of labor and intellectual specialization – smart males thrive in that environment. That in a nutshell, is the story of Western culture.

    Black males living in the tropics had a different success selection modal – theirs was a cultural environment of physical and verbal confrontation, with far less family responsibilities – thus giving woman more cultural power. This is the problem with blacks in America – they are still operating and living as a tropical society in a cold culture. To gain success, they have to adapt.

    Environment dictates culture – which in turn pushes biological selection.

  19. Sean says:
    @astro boy

    You think we are autonomous moral agents, and our biological nature as mammals does does not affect our purposeful behavior? ‘Doing metaphysics’ is in any case a very outdated insult .

    • Replies: @astro boy
  20. Wally says: • Website
    @Erik Sieven

    “But in the end they use this power and freedom to arrange a situation in which they pair with subsaharan African or muslim males, thus they put themselves back into an situation where the show deference etc.”

    No they don’t!

    At least not the desirable higher IQ females.

    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
    , @Sean
  21. Seck says:
    @Priss Factor

    This, I must say, is one of the best comments from Priss.

    What I’d like to add on is, in real life, in mating game, one of the traits women look for is “social status”. It is either they want (1) a finished product or (2) a product that will become the product of the year in their mating market.

    No women will stoop down to a guy with a lower socio-economic status. They will flock if those guys from lower strata become Alpha during their mating time. But they will not actively look out for a guy from lower strata with potential to become their future wives. That’s nature.

    We can remove the “socio-economic status” if they’re looking for one night hookup. There are tons of movies with women from higher strata picking guys from lower strata solely due to their “Manliness” and “Alpha” behavior in all other countries, not only in Hollywood. Those movies cater to the needs of men in local populations to aim higher in their lives and they can achieve gorgeous, ultra high, fine ladies in their lives.

    As time moves on, and socio-economic status changes over time, the landscape of movies story also changes.

  22. unit472 says:

    It might be useful to see if beauty/sex appeal factors into this. Most girls are not great beauties and this might affect their ‘self esteem’ as much as anything else. OTOH a very attractive 16 year old girl knows she is desirable and has no need to be assertive, she has to fight off the attention of males.

  23. Sean says:
    @Fred Reed

    I don’t know how I would prove it, and yet to my admittedly superficial gaze blacks do not seem to behave like other peoples of the same latitudes.

    When they have the same upbringing you can tell if it was the culture. US Blacks seem to behave not a little differently in modern permissive culture than they did 80 years ago. The Chinese in the US do too well for their behaviour to be anything but substantially hard-wired. The model minority is losing patience.

    To this lay observer, deference seems proportional to dependence, and changes too rapidly to be genetic. In 1930, women in America needed a husband to live decently, so they were deferential and agreeable, this being a large part of femininity. Now they can live without men and do not fear their strength, so they are more combative and hostile. Thus feminism. Thus the strong tendency of American men to complain of the lack of feminine women in the US and their attraction to Thais, Mexicans, Viets, and other women of the tropical world where deference is the norm. That is, the north-south cline seems to be deference to the south, lack of it to the north.

    If they are genetically no more argumentative with men than Anglo women, Mexican women when brought up in the US would no more or less deferential to men . Is that true, or are ethnic Mexican women brought up in US culture more argumentative than Anglo women? If Mexican women brought up in the US are more argumentative around men than Anglo women then it is probably innate to Latinas to be non-deferential to men. The culture in Mexico could school them to be other than they are naturally.

    I have read there is a downward assimilation trend among Mexican immigrants to the US on a variety of indices, which become increasingly worse with succeeding generations brought up in US culture. That rather suggests that Mexican traditional culture is required to do what is it is not necessary for US culture to do because the adaptive behaviour is hard wired in Anglos In Africa the culture is surely the opposite to the genetic tendency, Nigerian culture is for great deference from wives.

    I don’t think it is true that the mass of women were in fear of being without a man, working women didn’t, they were in a variety of jobs such as servants. Women can’t always get another man but leaving wives was once not socially accepted. The case in which women were constrained to be deferential was the world of Jane Austen. Her novels portray the quandary of women who to remain in their leisured class must marry a wealthy man. Austen’s popularity may have been that the stories feature the world the readers wanted to live in; one where ladies who are impertinent and scoff at suitors pretensions (Elizabeth Bennet) or turn down a marriage proposal from a wealthy suitor (Fanny Price), yet end up with a catch anyway.

  24. astro boy says:

    um, no.
    I think that Fred’s point that in some cases, behaviors change too rapidly to be scientifically shown to be genetic changes. Genetic metaphysicians say all change is genetic, regardless of other information, and proceed from there. In the same way that spiritual metaphysicians ascribe all causes to the unseen. Do you see the difference?
    I certainly agree that our biology effects many things.
    Also, I don’t really care if it is outdated. And, it wasn’t an insult, but an accurate description of the phenomenon.

    • Replies: @Sean
  25. Sean says:

    If deference to males in European women is due to something hereditary, the extremely equalitarian modern culture’s failure to produce a generation of forthright women will be seem as evidence of a male chauvinist pig miasma/glass ceiling that is repressing European women.

    But the non European women brought up in Western permissive culture will not have the same genetic tendency to deference, and feminists will be entranced by more women ‘like Somali born Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Iraqi born Swedish politician Esabelle Dingizian, british MP ‘Naz’ Shah, or the half Iranian German politician Sahra Wagenknecht. Confident women like these and Nina Burleigh (half Iraqi) will become extremely prominent in public life in the future.

    The failure of young European women to behave as the intelligentsia think they should will create the impression among HBD sceptics that there is a deadening white male influence damaging girls’ self esteem. We will see much more of groups like the Swedish feminists party, which did well in recent elections;-

    The elections to the European Parliament need to be seen in light of the mobilization of parties with racist, nazi and fascist ideologies around Europe. Several of those parties are already represented in the European Parliament and there is a significant risk that this group will continue to grow. More action is needed to counter structural discrimination. If this does not happen, racist and conservative forces will gain more ground. We need to raise the level of ambition in the struggle for democracy and human rights for all. Feminist parties are forming across Europe and our long-term goal is to work together for the establishment of a feminist political group.

    Feministiskt Initiativ is contesting the EP elections as an alternative for everyone who wants to see a different political trajectory. Our political platform is built on equality, human rights and freedom from all forms of discrimination. We want to reallocate resources by investing in welfare, sustainability, accessibility and human security.

    We challenge the image of Sweden and Europe as the paradise of gender equality. This is a false image that diminishes the existing problems and stands in the way of genuine change. It is an image that is used by nationalists wanting to portray women’s oppression as a foreign problem that originates in other parts of the world. Women’s rights are thus hijacked in racist rhetoric that aims to close borders. At the same time, nationalist and racist parties are the ones peddling the most misogynistic policies. Culture is in focus for these parties, described as something that is nationally homogenous, and is used to construct boundaries between people. [...]

  26. And what looks like deference is really a demand for preference, i.e. demand to be noticed, admired, and loved.

    Yes, “looks like.” It’s possible for a woman to create an image of being deferential, while doing most of the real decision-making. That’s how traditional European societies used to work.

    In 1930, women in America needed a husband to live decently, so they were deferential and agreeable, this being a large part of femininity. Now they can live without men and do not fear their strength, so they are more combative and hostile.


    You’re exaggerating in both directions. Things were not so idyllic in 1930 (I can show you articles from that period where American men complain about American women and compare them unfavorably to European women). By the same token, your present-day impressions of American women are largely based on single women, either the ones you’ve met or the ones your friends bitch about. In a tight marriage market, such as now exists, most single women are god-awful. I agree. The nice women are married.

    Statistically, White American women behave a lot better than do African American women or Hispanic American women. Sure, Mexican women may seem nicer, but they live in a culture where their behavior is a lot more constrained than it would be in the U.S. If you transplant them to the U.S. they will change, and they will underperform White American women on almost any indicator.

    In this kind of discussion, men blame their problems with women on feminism. I think a more relevant factor is the ratio of single men to single women on the mate market. Until the 1970s, women outnumbered men on the mate market, so there was a lot of pressure on women to be nice. Since the 1980s, that ratio has completely reversed. Single men now outnumber single women at all ages up to the mid-40s. And the ratio is even more unbalanced if we look at childless singles.

    So if you’re a seller in a seller’s market, you’re going to milk the buyer for all he’s worth, regardless of whether you’re a feminist or a traditionalist. That’s the way the mate market now functions, and getting rid of feminism won’t change a thing.

    The apparent impossibility of measuring selective pressure and correlating it with results, f = ma, and the tendency to attribute traits to genes whose existence is inferred from the traits, lends a metaphysical quality to these discussions

    I think some people are spooked by terms like “selective pressure.” Basically, if you move into a certain set of circumstances, you will have to fit in. People who fit in better will live longer and reproduce more than people who don’t. If you don’t like “selective pressure” let’s talk about “circumstance-fittingness.”

  27. Sean says:
    @astro boy

    The metaphysic, or bio-logic if you prefer, comes in when we say, as seems indubitable, that the purpose of a girl spending 3 hours to get ready for a night out and trying a dozen different tops on is reproduction. I don’t know if European women take more care over their preparation for a night out when culture is held constant, and I’m still waiting to be told if Mexican women brought up in US culture are less deferential to men than Anglo women brought up in that same culture. Metaphysics is that which must always be true.

    • Replies: @Astro boy
  28. @Wally

    I don´t know about the situation other countries, but in Germany also high IQ women seem prefer males of westafrican ancestry over males with other ancestry

    • Replies: @Seck
  29. Astro boy says:

    Oh, now, I see. You don’t know what metaphysical means.

    • Replies: @Sean
  30. @Peter Frost

    I’m surprised that no one has even mentioned humour. Certain kinds of humourous talk may be typical of unpretentious ladies’ (“girls’”) lunches but plenty of heterosexual matings from one night to permanent are facilitated by making the other laugh.

  31. Sean says:
    @Astro boy
    In the Eastern Aegean lies an island. It has silver olive groves, green marshes and forested hills. In the spring, migrating birds fill its skies and flowers fill its meadows. And there is a lagoon, clear and calm, that cuts the island nearly in two. Science was born on its shores.In 345 BC, Aristotle arrived on Lesbos. He was young and newly married. In Athens, he had been taught by Plato to seek truth in the intangible realm of ideas. Rejecting his teacher’s metaphysics, Aristotle began to study nature. He recorded the salaciousness of sparrows, the sexual incontinence of girls, the stomachs of snails, the sensitivity of sponges, the sounds of cicadas and the structure of the human heart. And then he explained them all. He founded the Science of Life.

    The Lagoon is the wondrous story of how one man began the greatest of all human endeavours; how, for centuries, his work was celebrated and how, in the Scientific Revolution, it was condemned so that today he is remembered as a philosopher, but forgotten as a scientist. Yet his science was beautiful and vast.

    In this luminous book, acclaimed biologist Armand Marie Leroi goes to Lesbos to see the creatures that Aristotle knew and loved. He recovers Aristotle’s science and explores his inspired theories – as well as the things that he got wildly wrong. Modern science still bears Aristotle’s stamp. Even now he shows us how to discover new worlds

    For crucial part of BBC documentary with Leroi explaining Aristotle’s achievement, see here. Teleology is a reason or explanation for something in function of its end, purpose or goal.[1] For example, a teleological explanation of why forks have prongs is that this design helps humans eat certain foods; stabbing food to help humans eat is what forks are for. It is derived from two Greek words: telos (end, goal, purpose) and logos (reason, explanation).

    A purpose that is imposed by a human use, such as that of a fork, is called extrinsic.[2] Natural teleology contends that natural entities have intrinsic purposes, irrespective of human use or opinion. For instance, Aristotle claimed that an acorn’s intrinsic telos is to become a fully grown oak tree. [...] ]Since the Novum Organum of Francis Bacon, teleological explanations in science tend to be deliberately avoided in favor of focus on material and efficient explanations. Final and formal causation came to be viewed as false or too subjective[...] In contrast, teleological based “grand narratives” are eschewed by the postmodern attitude[11] and teleology may be viewed as reductive, exclusionary and harmful to those whose stories are diminished or overlooked.[12]

    Against this postmodern position, Alasdair MacIntyre has argued that a narrative understanding of oneself, of one’s capacity as an independent reasoner, one’s dependence on others and on the social practices and traditions in which one participates, all tend towards an ultimate good of liberation. Social practices may themselves be understood as teleologically oriented to internal goods, for example practices of philosophical and scientific inquiry are teleologically ordered to the elaboration of a true understanding of their objects. MacIntyre’s book After Virtue famously dismissed the naturalistic teleology of Aristotle’s ‘metaphysical biology’, but he has cautiously moved from that book’s account of a sociological teleology toward an exploration of what remains valid in a more traditional teleological naturalism

    Seeing purpose in women of reproductive age exhibiting deference to men is metaphysical, yes. But it is not subjective or ethereal, it’s about the dirt, worms, and reproducing mammals’ genes being selected to cope with pressures that vary geographically.

    Culture can adapt people faster than genetics admittedly, maybe even better inasmuch as Mexican women are perhaps more deferential when brought up in Mexican culture. But that is perhaps an argument for people not giving up their traditional culture, which (metaphysically speaking) is there for a reason.

  32. Sean says:

    Sub Saharan Africans are not physically unattractive to white women, if you control for IQ. Black are more extroverted and I think the evidence is quite clear on that. Re the type of girls in countries like Germany who go for blacks, I think you are forgetting that the higher IQ girls internalise their cultural environment, and it tells them that blacks are just men with a different coloured skin rather than men selected for polygyny, in which the ability to attract women is vital but a proclivity for forming lasting emotional attachment to a particular woman is maladaptive. Euro girls think blacks as boyfriends are going to be a lot more clingy that they actually turn out to be.

    In countries like Germany brighter girls get more anti-racist education and take it more seriously. Basically, the high quality girls in European society are more indoctrinated to be open to a black male as a sexual partner. Education is a form of indoctrination and in countries where the the most educated young women don’t have society’s cautious attitude to blacks to acquire a folk wisdom understanding of what blacks are like, the girls only find out through the bitter experience of being used and dumped.

    • Agree: AnotherDad
    • Replies: @astro boy
    , @AnotherDad
  33. astro boy says:

    “Seeing purpose in women of reproductive age exhibiting deference to men is metaphysical, yes.”
    No, it’s not.
    “In Athens, he had been taught by Plato to seek truth in the intangible realm of ideas. Rejecting his teacher’s metaphysics…”
    Doesn’t mean sciency things aren’t objectively true, but conflating the word “metaphysics” with scientific truths is an abuse of language.
    In any case, FR appears to have been using the word in the same way I do, and NOT the way you do.

    • Replies: @Sean
  34. Sean says:
    @astro boy

    Yeah, as an insult.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  35. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I don’t believe FR is using it as an insult, and I am certainly not. I also don’t use the word “Scientific” to insult people engaging in actual metaphysical inquiry. But, I might use it to critique their mixing of domains.

    • Replies: @Sean
  36. @Sean

    … higher IQ girls internalise their cultural environment, and it tells them that blacks are just men with a different coloured skin rather than men selected for polygyny, in which the ability to attract women is vital but a proclivity for forming lasting emotional attachment to a particular woman is maladaptive. Euro girls think blacks as boyfriends are going to be a lot more clingy that they actually turn out to be.

    In countries like Germany brighter girls get more anti-racist education and take it more seriously. Basically, the high quality girls in European society are more indoctrinated to be open to a black male as a sexual partner. …

    Excellent comment Sean.

    I’ll add–while it varies individually–i don’t actually think white girls on average think black men are very attractive–visually. (I’ve heard several young women say just the opposite.)

    I think the attraction is precisely that black men are “selected for polygyny” and more aggressively male, have more “game”.
    In an era when
    a) women are told they don’t have to depend on a man, have a welfare state and bogus make work job opportunities (i.e. don’t feel the need to pick a suitable provider) and
    b) white men are bad-mouthed for being male, coached to be more compliant and feminine
    this quality of aggressive maleness, of “game” is appealing to many women. And *especially* because they are propagandized that blacks are cool and sticking with their own kind is racist.

    And i think these tendencies are no doubt worse in Europe where the PC is intense and the

    “folk wisdom understanding of what blacks are like”

    essentially missing.

    It’s a disaster. White men need to stand up and let white women know what’s acceptable for them to still be considered acceptable romantic\mating prospects. Otherwise white civilization is headed into the sewer. It took many thousands of years to create the white genome that is capable of producing the pleasant prosperous societies we have. It must be defended … or those societies are gone.

    • Replies: @helena
  37. Sean says:

    A conceptual clarification is in order. My reading of the post was the function behind female deference varying around the world was related to of sexual selection of women. Calling that ‘metaphysical’ sounds negative, however Fred’s allows that black African are different, so he wasn’t saying that it was unscientific to say races vary in behaviour, merely incorrect in some detail. The science of biology is quite compatible with the idea of selection pressures producing adaptations with the purpose of finding a mate. The purpose of finding a mate exists in the system, so it is in that sense a higher level or metaphysical explanation of what is going on.

  38. @Peter Frost

    The mate market is also influenced by geography and a tougher job market.

    Men who live in big cities have access to a favorable ratio of single women to men but struggle to make enough money to make them a viable long-term catch, hence the urban dating market contains lots of caddish guys and over-fussy, cautious or masculine women. Similarly guys at college can meet lots of women but aren’t a very appealing catch as they don’t make any money (women in their 20s now make more money than men).

    Conversely, men in rural areas may have jobs but face a serious dearth of females since most single women flock to big cities for work (either because of their career choices, or simply because they just don’t like the rural lifestyle).

    Meanwhile in surburban areas there are a lot of young working class women, but many of them are single mothers.

  39. helena says:

    It must be defended … or those societies are gone.

    I think they’re gone already; there’s no turning back. Europeans in Europe will have to accept minority status (as they now appear in many adverts, especially mobile technology type adverts) or, they will form enclaves and, that is likely to be as unsuccessful as it has been in S Africa because, the State will not support them with ‘ethnicity grants’ the way other ‘cultures’ have been supported, and the media will villify them the way UKIP supporters are already regularly referred to as fish-heads, losers, and knuckle-draggers.

    So far, ‘defense’ has been worse than futile; more like an own-goal. Europeans have to think less Euro-like and more PR-like. The word white is a busted flush. It will always be viewed as 1860 and 1933. Euros could try clever, eye-catching advertising. Something like a T-shirt with a circle of Euro heads – yellow/turquoise, red/hazel, black/blue, white/grey, mouse/green. And catch-phrases such as, ‘we love our women’.

  40. helena says:

    In other words, Euros could develop diaspora mentality and strong sense of identity with positive messages. The goal now can only be salvaging some sort of self-government, if not at national level, then at local level; clubs and societies with international links. And Euros can be the bigger man and accept everyone with some Euro heritage as part of the big family. Shrink and expire or grow and expand.

    (OT), you’re keen on the homo-germ hypothesis, I think, apologies if not. I had a thought yesterday that I’d like to share –
    -do you think it is possible that homosexuality could be a side-effect of racial mixing? It’s an observation that makes me wonder but, logically, I can imagine how that might work; maybe we are ‘programmed’ within a defined set of gender-genes that could get shaken about by racial mixing?

    • Replies: @singh.jatt
  41. […] Frost recently posted on female shyness among men–more specifically, on the observation that adolescent white females appear to become very shy […]

  42. […] I am reminded here of Peter Frost’s On the Adaptive Value of “Aw Shucks:” […]

  43. @helena

    No, they can go back to their roots & ethnically cleanse anyone who’s not a part of that bloodline.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Peter Frost Comments via RSS