First of all, let me state that there is nothing here that excuses violence against women. Violence is a choice regardless of anyone's inclinations, and not only are the occasions where it becomes justified few and far between, but violence against women in particular would run counter to the argument below.
....
"There is no scientific evidence to suggest that boys and girls, men and women, are wired differently at all." - A quote from a left-wing feminist interlocutor today.
What a crazy claim. As a matter of fact, it's just false. There is a huge amount of evidence, a meta analysis of which confirms that the quoted statement is nonsense. Unfortunately for the whims of Guardian readers, preference has no place in determining scientific fact.
The claim itself was intended to reinforce her suggestion that the difference in average male and female positions in society is purely down to one group (men) abusing another (women), and men who disagree are "weak, pathetic, and drips" who "fear" women.
It may be that differences in the brain are a consequence of nurture more than nature, but to assume that to be the case ignores the role of males in human evolution.
If the male role is to take the bigger risk, and typically it is, then that may well explain why a tendency towards expectation of a larger reward built up. Larger rewards encourage accepting greater risks. That would have been reinforced by the increased male capacity to collect on that reward socially.
Females on the other hand make the far higher material investment through child rearing. Not only is it somewhat incapacitating but it requires more energy and time (the cost of failure is lower for a male). That means that to protect their investment, it pays to have the males take on a greater share of the risk. In that sense, not only do females tolerate male risk taking/ aggression/ dominance, but they actively exploit it in engineering a situation that benefits their genes. In order to spare females from higher risk, they required males to be stronger, faster, possessing of larger and denser relevant brain structures, more prepared for hunting and fighting. If the presence of these qualities increase the danger from rivals, it increases the demand for them in a spiraling effect up until the point it ceases to be a significant advantage for the genes' propagation. Far from being a male dominated society engineered by men to their advantage, male are born into a violent world because of the purpose it serves.
Around the world there are numerous worthy efforts to oppose violence against women. One such effort was the #BringBackOurGirls social media campaign in response to the abduction of hundreds of girls by the Islamist group, Boko Haram. A noble cause, no doubt - those girls will be horribly brutalised - yet with extremely few exceptions, all of the major news organisations neglected to mention that the group also abducts thousands of boys. Those boys are forced to kill and be killed. It is as if there is an assumption that because males are killed predominantly by males, that males are to blame and so are unworthy of sympathy or consideration. Women, by contrast apparently have nothing to do with the violent world they find themselves in. This is complete nonsense.
Patriarchy in humans isn't a product of fear of female independence or power, or Guardian inspired, victimhood fetishised, psychobabble notions of inadequacy, it's the product of an evolutionarily stable strategy. What's happening now is that technology, first in agriculture, then military (and probably then birth control and health), is allowing greater shares of the risk to be outsourced. If males take less risk, they need less incentive, in which case, females can expect to reduce their costs in the relationship (e.g. cultural oppression). Empathy aside, this is probably a shift that is welcome to most males with the capacity for it; afterall, being essentially farmed for violence comes with its drawbacks. Also unfortunate is that evolution of the brain cannot keep up with technological change. Genes favouring brains adapted to violence no longer gain an advantage and genes favouring the new arrangement prosper, so given sufficient time and pressure, the average male tendency for the old order may subside. One of the main reasons why oppression of women is more prevalent in religious cultures (including that driving Boko Haram) is not just because codifying it in scripture enforces it, although that's true too, but because religion stunts scientific and intellectual advancement and thus fundamentally blocks the transformation of material needs that would then propel cultural change.
It's perfectly reasonable for women to make new demands based on new needs, and those males who can adapt will do well, but although those females with an alternative means for protection and acquisition of resources may reasonably want males to work differently, it is not reasonable to condemn male tendencies as flawed, "weak", "pathetic" or evil for simply being what was required of them by women (within a reasonable range) until extremely recently in the West, and in many parts of the world still is. Recognition of this doesn't preclude advocacy for a new arrangement or opposition to violence or oppression in general - the opportunity for disseminating technology and democracy, which provides the most stable environment within which to maximise the benefits of the technology, means that the global success of womens movements benefits humanity as a whole - but rather than fetishising victimhood and blindly denying sex-based difference, understanding the reality of it might actually help expediate a transition with less resistance to a more equal state of affairs.
