Feminist Phenotype 2

The Feminist Phenotype- the biological undertones of the ‘Progressive West’
Much like a piece of fruit rotting from within, the West has been in decline for some time now. There are many factors to consider- the way our economy is structured on debt, the growing government and rifts between citizens, and increasingly blatant corruption right before our eyes. But why have things gotten so out of control in our republic, and in other developed nations? When examining a problem, the best approach is often to find the root of the issue, to look at possible sources of the struggles that we see in the clashes of cultures across the globe. One thing that has become more apparent through the rise of clinical research is that the characteristics and differences between humans can be described by our biology. This goes beyond the r/K selection theory, and peers into the many influences that our endocrinology and brain structure can have on human behavior.

One unfortunate aspect of declines is chasm that has grown between males and females. We no longer seem united, with growing rates of divorce, infighting, and finger-pointing, especially between younger members of each sex. We see the MGTOW movement swelling as millennial feminists claim incidents of ‘rape culture’ on college campuses. Often, as teens and young adults increase their notches in the bedpost, they gradually erode their ability to form strong pair bonds. Oxytocin and vasopressin hormones released during sex help form bonding-relationships in pairs and enforce attraction to one’s partner (https://archive.fo/HOGiQ; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4486624/; https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/pair-bonding; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080453378002436; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10026808 ). This may make it difficult to form a lasting pair-bond, and could be a reason why so many couples often divorce after several years. They are less able to keep the bond of sexual fidelity, and most often it is the wife, disillusioned with the emotional, sexual, and connective climate of the relationship, who ends it (https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-evolution-of-divorce). Our culture emphasizes putting one’s happiness as paramount, and to quickly swipe away what appear to be mismatches.

Other pushes for changes in laws (like no-fault divorce) have contributed to the ease of separation, and many aren’t getting married at all (https://www.bentley.edu/impact/articles/nowuknow-why-millennials-refuse-get-married). Descriptions of marriage as an oppressive patriarchal institution were voiced by ‘no-fault’ backers like famous feminist Betty Friedan (http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/05/10031/; https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-evolution-of-divorce ) and feminists continue to express negative views of monogamy today. Those who insist that boys will have plenty of other male role models after their fathers leave do not take into account the physiological changes that occur- the absence of a father leads to decreased testosterone and higher cortisol (stress hormone) (https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/22632-new-study-fatherlessness-affects-boys-in-education). These conditions contribute to increased crime by fatherless boys (https://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress.com/statistics/), testosterone fluctuations, (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/), aggression, and impulse control (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3294220/). When we examine crime statistics and national tendency to snap at each other over political opinions, few consider the biological influences that underlie our behaviors, especially when the hormonal changes were instituted years or decades ago and our behaviors have become normal or accepted now.

The wife is also more likely to win custody of her kids, so the exposure to the biological father will vary. However, she may not have the time and resources to properly raise them, or may rely on the help of new boyfriends or the ever-expanding Mr. State to care for her children. This raises many other problems for the children, as it is more likely they will be abused by a new boyfriend or neglected as their mother tries to work and wring enough money from their father to support them. Abuse and neglect are sources of stress hormones that further contribute to impulsivity, crime, and repeating abusive behaviors (http://archive.is/VWoE2; http://archive.is/HFJZ4).

The inability to form a pair bond likely emanates from the same physiological changes that describe the dislike that Western females have formed for the idea of gender roles, family, and childbirth. Images of angry liberal activists or brightly dyed millennial feminists focused on Tinder, travel, and taking classes don’t evoke much motherly warmth. Feminists are overwhelmingly in favor of abortion and birth control; 92% of self-declared feminists in one large study declared they had taken birth control, 20% of that same sample claim to have had an abortion (http://www.sheknows.com/living/articles/1117969/infographic-how-women-relate-to-feminism). Both of these actions can have negative effects on a woman’s hormones, contributing to a casual view on the value of human life, cognitive function (http://archive.is/1EM4x), partner attraction (https://archive.fo/6kwtl), and fertility problems later (https://www.motherandbaby.co.uk/trying-for-a-baby/pregnancy-planning/help-to-get-pregnant/how-an-abortion-affects-your-chance-of-getting-pregnant-again). The effects of different types of birth control are still being explored, although a focus on the behaviors that necessitate its use are discouraged by feminists as “slut shaming” and shouted down as old-fashioned and oppressive.

We can now identify the distribution of white and gray matter in human brains that differentiate between males and females (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050121100142.htm). We know endocrinological (hormonal) differences that define female cycles and male risk-taking behaviors in our sexually dimorphic species. Many remember the absolute melt-down of one of the most well-respected tech companies after the well-sourced suggestions from James Damore that males and females might actually be genetically and psychologically different. Reactions like this illuminate even clearer the staunch refusal of some to delve into biological mechanisms to explain how humans have fused themselves into groups they declare to be immune to any ‘bigoted’ attempts to classify or describe them. Unfortunately, our inability to examine the biological differences between sexes and races without inflammation has caused us to ignore important factors about our actions and their effects on our society and posterity (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html).

We’ve reacted too fanatically on the side of progressivism, and it’s time to calm some of the charges forward into equality. There is no ‘moral’ right or wrong about simply having differences between the sexes, which often complement each other and have helped us survive as a successful species. To suddenly ditch them in favor of equalizing everything has already produced consequences. Single women are now experiencing rising levels of despair and exasperation at the ideas of partnership and marriage- women have always tried to marry up in status and resource-gathering potential, to ensure the nourishment of their children. Now, women find themselves the majority in many college programs and entering the workforce facing a dwindling population of acceptable mates. How have they reacted to this? By stuffing more women into male-dominated programs like computer engineering, and taking so much moral agency from women that college boys don’t dare talk to them for fear of getting slapped with rape charges against female perma-victims.

Unfortunately, the pervasive ideology of ‘sexual liberation’- that women should be free to sleep around as they wish- has wreaked havoc on their hormone signaling pathways and liberated these women from the ability to pair-bond. This is not to suggest that we institute laws against pre-marital sex, or prevent people from ending marriages that have gone awry. But we should critically examine how society looks at these actions. Our biology is changing on a societal and regional scale, with hormones, mimickers, antibiotics, inhibitors, and other chemicals in all our products. As we learn more about epigenetics, we learn how a parent’s biology and gene expression at the times of conception, pregnancy, and infant care affect the oxytocin, cortisol, testosterone, and other hormonal factors that influence the baby’s gene expression. We already allow companies to pour pesticides and antibiotics into our bodies, but we need to start looking at what our actions do to our offspring at the level of specific gene expression.

As behaviors change, measurable changes in gene expression through selection and epigenetics are affect our culture. These changes may even be more important than the financial aspects of feminism. We know that pushing women into the work force lowers wages, swells the student loan bubble, allows advertising and profits for businesses who target young women and their urges for women-oriented products and programs, and a number of other financial changes. It’s easy to convince women who constantly seek to liberate themselves even from the advice of men to make purchases in the name of “being a strong independent woman.” As our actions change as a culture, are we accumulating small changes in our endocrine signaling pathways over generations? Are we providing the environment in chemicals and the way we treat our children to push away beneficial biological patterns? It’s not always possible to predict where changes in testosterone or oxytocin will put us, but we should get some critical eyes on the larger picture of where the West is headed.