It Just Works

These antisocial behaviors are the subverted, shadow aspect to the more predominant masculine (even in masculine women) urge to provide and protect, which entails necessary and selective objectification and aggression.

“There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper.” is what Camille Paglia said. Genius, she argues, takes obsession, which produces good and bad talents and skills. Women fall in the middle of the IQ spectrum and men on the ends.

Social forces are certainly at play, but I want to stay focused. trauma or other external factors may serve to explain, but not excuse behavior. Feminine crime is more likely to be focused on family -- children, partners, elders, and others in the immediate family.

https://time.com/2921491/hope-solo-women-violence/

Women are at least equally as likely as men to initiate DV. 40% of victims in a DV study in America were men. Women are at least as likely as men to abuse their children and are the perpetrators in at least half of child maltreatment cases. Lesbian couples also have the highest rate of DV -- 44%, compared to 35% of straight women and 26% of gay men.

Anecdotally speaking, I was abused physically and psychologically by my mother, who was abused physically and psychologically by both her parents. I was also SA'd by a man. Both sexes have their share of degenerates who harm others. Whether their personalities or social experiences are masculine, feminine, or somewhere in between likely has an effect on how they express their violence. Everyone who commits a crime against another should be held accountable, I just disagree with the dichotomy that men are assumed to be perps and women are assumed to be victims.

I'm going to respond to this in parts.

"Individual men aren't equally predisposed to committing rape."

No, no one is ever equally predisposed to anything since that would require the confluence of innumerable, mostly unknown, factors. I have never made this claim; I don't of anyone who has ever made this claim.

"Men are approximately 49% of the population and commit 80% of violent crime."

This technically true in the USA [1]. However, it also leaves out the fact that men account for closer to 90% of homicide offenders in the USA and closer to 95% of homicides worldwide [2]. And those statistics don't even consider the fact that many female homicide offenders were acting in self defense. Men also account for closer to 90-95% of all sex offenders [3].

That is to say, a greater proportion of women's offenses are "simple assault" than men's [4]. (Simple assault is generally defined as either a threat of physical harm without any actual harm or minor acts of assault without resulting injury like slapping someone, grabbing their arm, or spitting on them.)

All in all, men commit the vast majority of violent crime and an even larger proportion of serious violent crime.

"The correlation to testosterone to physical aggression is indisputable -- this correlation between masculinization and aggression exists even in women."

No, no it is not, and no it does not.

This meta-analysis [5] found a correlation of 0.08 between testosterone and aggression. To be clear, a correlation score can range from -1 to +1, with -1 indicating a perfect negative correlation, +1 indicating a perfect positive correlation, and 0 indicating no correlation. A correlation of 0.08 is an extremely weak correlation.

Another, more recent, meta-analysis [6] found a 0.05 correlation between aggression and testosterone and no statistically significant causal effect of testosterone on aggression. Changes in testosterone were weakly correlated with aggression (0.16) and this was only in men. Importantly, this result may have been influenced by publication bias (see the study for details). Again, to be clear, they found no evidence of a causal connection between testosterone and aggression.

The lack causal connection is important, as some research as presented in this review [7] and meta-analysis [8], suggests that behavior/external events (like winning a competition) can increase testosterone. This raises an important question: can acting/being aggressive independently raise testosterone? If so, (and it does appear likely) then men who choose to act aggressive may be raising their testosterone levels; when recorded in a correlational format this results in the positive (albeit weak) correlation discussed above.

Here's some other, single study results:

In women, performing (acting out) a performance of power, whether in a traditionally masculine or feminine way, increased their level of testosterone [9]

In men, testosterone increases both pro-social and anti-social "status enhancing" behaviors [10]

Testosterone is associated with both "socially dominant [note: not necessarily aggressive] behavior among high-status persons, but strategic submission to seniority among lower-status persons" in men [11]

Testosterone is associated with greater pro-social behavior in women [12]

In an animal (male gerbil) model, testosterone caused prosocial behavior depending on "current social context" [13]

All in all, the correlation between testosterone and aggression is (1) not indisputable, (2) extremely weak, and (3) doesn't appear to apply to women.

"These antisocial behaviors are the subverted, shadow aspect to the more predominant masculine (even in masculine women) urge to provide and protect, which entails necessary and selective objectification and aggression."

Anon ... no. First of all, you appear to be treating "masculine" behavior as if it is biologically innate - for which there is no evidence - rather than socially determined.

You act as if women have not been "providing" since women existed. As if women haven't been involved in growing and domesticating plants and animals, haven't been taking care of children, haven't been growing and giving birth to all the children in history. Even the traditional "feminine" role emphasizes "providing" and "nurturing" the family.

I have the exact same comments for "protect", but more importantly: protect from what anon? From the weather? Bears? Disease? No. It's men. Men protect women from other men and then expect us to be grateful, as if it isn't men who have created the need for protection.

Beyond all that: even if the "masculine urge to provide and protect" were a real thing (and not something women have always been involved in), it still would not necessitate the "selective objectification and aggression". This argument isn't even logical ... why would "providing" need objectification? If there were no aggression what would be left to protect?

"There is no female Mozart ... "

Absolutely hilarious example to choose, anon. Meet, the female Mozart: Maria Anna “Nannerl” Mozart (his sister) [14].

And here's some other female contemporaries of Mozart [15]. I suggest Google as a resource to find more.

"...because there is no female Jack the Ripper."

While it is true that the number of male serial killers does outnumber female serial killers (and the disparity is even wider for those who kill specifically for sadism), there have, in fact, been some.

"Genius, she argues, takes obsession, which produces good and bad talents and skills. Women fall in the middle of the IQ spectrum and men on the ends."

I find the argument that obsession -> genius to be very concerning, and don't expect there are any sources on that. In particular, serial killer IQs tend to follow the same range as non-serial killers (source in last linked post).

And no, the idea that women fall in the middle of the IQ spectrum is not supported by high quality evidence.

This extensive multi-country review [16] on math performance found that the "variance ratio" (the measure for what you're describing) varies widely between countries and is related to social inequality. This suggests the differences in variance are a result of environmental not innate differences.

This longitudinal study [17] claims to find differences in girl's and boy's IQ scores, but the differences found are within the margin of error of the test. This means that a sex difference is unlikely to exist, and is, at the very least, not reliably measurable. It also suggests that any difference in the variance of IQ scores, is very small. (And see above for possible alternative explanations of this difference.)

"Social forces are certainly at play"

Yes, as indicated above.

"but I want to stay focused."

Focused on what??

"trauma or other external factors may serve to explain, but not excuse behavior."

Agreed (mostly). They may serve as a partial explanation yes, but people can experience trauma or other hardships without engaging in violence.

"Feminine crime is more likely to be focused on family -- children, partners, elders, and others in the immediate family." + [The link]

Correct, most crime by women is aimed at people they know. See above posts (when I spoke about homicide) for further discussion on this.

The link is an anecdotal source on this topic, again, refer to my earlier discussions.

"Women are at least equally as likely as men to initiate DV. 40% of victims in a DV study in America were men. Women are at least as likely as men to abuse their children and are the perpetrators in at least half of child maltreatment cases."

This is completely false. The idea that women perpetrate domestic violence or child abuse at similar rates as men, is a misogynistic myth.

See this post for an explanation. Also, this source [18] discusses the topic of women and domestic violence perpetration; I plan to eventually make a post on this topic, but in the meantime that source is an excellent place to start.

"Lesbian couples also have the highest rate of DV -- 44%, compared to 35% of straight women and 26% of gay men."

This is also a myth. A misogynistic and homophobic myth.

I'm not sure where you got those specific numbers, but I believe the origin of the myth started in the one of the CDC's reports on "Victimization by Sexual Identity" [19]. See this post for an explanation on why you shouldn't use this data to try and estimate perpetration. (Short version: it isn't weighted to be representative of the perpetrator population.) For the intimate partner violence portion in particular, it shares the same issues I describe in my post debunking the last two myths (i.e., reliance on the CTS and issues there within.)

More importantly, they don't report on the sex of the perpetrator for domestic violence, so we also have no idea if the lifetime prevalence rate of domestic violence is a result of prior relationships with a man. Data on other forms of victimization support the possibility, with 73% of lesbian victims reporting only male perpetrators of any contact sexual violence and 90% of lesbian victims reporting only male perpetrators of rape. In addition, 52% of lesbian victims report only male perpetrators of stalking.

This BJS report "Violent Victimization by Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, 2017–2020" [20] shows a similar rate of intimate partner violence for homosexual and heterosexual individuals. Importantly, however, this combines male and female homosexual individuals into one category, so we don't know the specific rate for female homosexuals.

"Anecdotally speaking, I was abused physically and psychologically by my mother, who was abused physically and psychologically by both her parents. I was also SA'd by a man."

This is terrible, and I hope you are safe and able to heal.

"Both sexes have their share of degenerates who harm others."

Sure, I mentioned the female serial killers. Notably, however, if you take a random sample of "degenerates who harm others" the vast majority are men.

"Whether their personalities or social experiences are masculine, feminine, or somewhere in between likely has an effect on how they express their violence."

I do not know what you mean by this. Socialization definitely plays a significant role in why men are so much more violent than women, but "feminine" men can and have been as violent as "masculine" men and "masculine" women have been as non-violent as "feminine" women.

"Everyone who commits a crime against another should be held accountable"

Yes.

"I just disagree with the dichotomy that men are assumed to be perps and women are assumed to be victims."

Anon, you started this ask by acknowledging that men commit 80% of violent crime (and I clarified that men commit 90+% of serious violent crime). This disparity is significant enough that it is perfectly reasonable to treat violent crime as a gendered phenomenon.

There are always exceptions and outliers. The existence of these cases does not invalidate the trend, nor should they deter the generalizations needed for meaningful class analysis.

Now, if you want to advocate against violence in general, draw attention to "male-on-male" violence and work to reduce it, that's also reasonable, and I wish you luck with your endeavor. (In all likelihood, feminist activism will - and already has - reduced male-on-male violence, even when it wasn't a specific target.)

But you still need to acknowledge that violence is primarily the domain of men. You also need to recognize that feminism is a movement by and for women. Our focus will always be male violence against women.

References below the cut:

---

Anon sent a follow-up before I posted this:

hey, a while ago I sent you an ask in response to your response in this post https://www.tumblr.com/evidence-based-activism/757742713997262849/individual-men-arent-equally-predisposed-to?source=share it’s been a while and I was wondering if you plan to respond? I gave quite a long rebuttal and I was curious and looking forward to seeing your response. I don’t think it broke any of your rules

As stated above, I have decided to answer this. However, this is very much in the category of "things you should post on your own blog".

---

So, without further ado, my response:

"Thanks for the detailed response. I will definitely look into all the statistics again to clear up misunderstandings, but first I quickly want to address a few things."

I'm glad my response helped you! But this it not quickly!

[My quote about what men are protecting us from] ... "The very fact that you can ask these questions is a stunning testimony to the sheer effectiveness of male protection."

No Anon, it isn't. The belief that men created society is a misogynistic myth. (I will expand on this as I respond.)

"A tribal woman living on the plains of Africa or in the jungles of the Amazon would never ask such a question. Women living in 17th or 18th century colonial America would never ask such a question."

Anon, you do not speak for the women of Africa or the Amazon. To presume that women in these communities don't desire equality with and protection from men just as much as an American white woman is incredibly racist.

Why don't we actually listen to these women?

The women in Kenya who established an all-female matriarch village to escape the patriarchal society and violent men. All the other women they inspired to do the same. [1]

The Amazonian women who are fighting to protect their homelands, who explicitly state that "We women unite because we have to, because we know that together we have more power and protection on multiple levels." [2] (And there are so very many similar examples, Anon. We know that women's involvement in conservation efforts improves their outcomes [3].)

The colonial feminists who fought for women's rights and against the patriarchy [4].

Women all around the world, at every point in history, have been resisting patriarchal control. All of us have always been asking these questions.

"It is protection from both the physical threats and the stringent physical demands imposed upon the human race by a brutal natural world."

Anon, worldwide (including all the non-Western women you are trying to speak for), the leading causes of death are noncommunicable and then infectious disease [5]. This is important since the patriarchy is directly responsible for women's greater risk from both noncommunicable [6] and infectious [7, 8] disease.

In fact, the patriarchy's negative effect on women's health care is substantial and ubiquitous. Consider how male bias in clinical trials has effected out understanding of both non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments for women [9]. Or the degree to which women's health is understudied and underfunded [10].

All of these are a direct effect of patriarchal bias and discrimination against women. As such, men have not "protected" us in any meaningful sense; they have instead made our outcomes much worse.

(And notably, this is all despite the fact that, biologically speaking, women are more likely live longer and survive extreme conditions [11]. Just imagine how severe of an effect the patriarchy must exert to challenge this natural fact.)

And men do not "protect us" from physical demands. In many cases they are purposefully excluding us from physically demanding jobs [12-14]. In some others, the most physically demanding jobs are "women's work" [15].

"Men are always protecting women either directly, as is done in more primitive societies, or indirectly by building barriers against nature around them, and an infrastructure that creates a far greater life of ease. Men also maintain that infrastructure."

Protecting women directly from ... what? Again, direct physical protection is from other men. (And this applies in more than just "primitive" societies.)

And again, men have been purposefully excluding women from infrastructure jobs. Moreover, why would you assume women have been passively accepting men's protection? Particularly given the common social emphasis on women as the caretaker of the home and family?

Also, I've cited this before, but men did not build infrastructure for women; it's built for other men [16]. For a recent case study, consider the gender gap in digital infrastructure [17]. The point here is that everything is built and influenced by a male-standard. Tell me: if men were generously building infrastructure for women, why are women's needs never so much as considered in said infrastructure?

"Men are virtually all (not all but the vast majority) of the mechanical engineers, materials engineers, civil engineers, electrical engineers,  petroleum engineers, construction workers etc. Men do almost all of the most dangerous jobs on the planet."

Yet again, Anon, men are purposefully excluding women from these positions. This is not a case of men self-sacrificially volunteering for dangerous work. Women have tried and are still trying to enter these industries. Whenever they do they face structural and interpersonal discrimination and harassment. And yet we're asked to feel grateful? As if we asked for this?

"And all of it is done to sustain and enhance this infrastructure which men have created in order to insulate and protect society and their families (which is to say, women and fellow men and children) from the hazards of the natural world."

Everything I've said above applies to this as well. But in addition to all of that, I'd like to direct you to the excellent post by @vexingwomen, copied below for posterity:

The fact that men are credited with advancing civilization, rather than condemned for critically stunting its advancement after they forbade half of humanity from contributing, is an excellent example of an androcentric analysis.

Later on, I'll also be listing a small fraction of the ways women have advanced civilization despite this omnipresent suppression by men.

"That is why when there is breakdown in that infrastructure and some kind of tragedy strikes, that is the priority for men  'Women and children first'. "

And this here, this is just wrong.

A study debunks the myth that men protect "women and children first" in maritime disasters (ship wrecks). [18]

Everywhere in the world, women and girls are disproportionately affected by disasters. Women are more likely to die in natural disasters, particularly in more patriarchal areas. Everywhere, "sexual assaults, physical abuse and human trafficking increase after a disaster". [19]

The UN has confirmed this, finding violence against women, particularly sexual violence, increases following disasters [20].

As has the World Bank [21] and the Inter-Agency Standing Committee [22].

Further, this study [23] concluded that eliminating the male head-of-household model is "crucial to speeding up overall household recovery" from natural disasters.

We also shouldn't forget that man-made disasters (e.g., war) truly are man-made [24, 25]

And you know that whole "men make infrastructure" and "men exclude women" things? Well it turns out it's a woman – Elizabeth Hausler – who has helped pioneer and advocate for disaster resilient infrastructure [26, 27].

"Men routinely protect women from rain, sleet, snow, starvation, hypothermia and animal attacks. When the virtually entirely male-created infrastructure of society is working well, the vast majority of women like you can go about their lives oblivious to the work being done behind the scenes to make their lives as comfortable and safe as they are."

Please see all of the above. And also consider the fact that women around the world do substantially – three times – more unpaid care work than men [28-30]. Imagine if women all stopped caring for children and doing housework and growing food and helping elders. This work is truly "behind the scenes" (i.e., unpaid, ignored, unpraised) and men are certainly oblivious (or at least unappreciative) of it. (They're comfortable with this status quo too.)

And this division has always been of benefit to men; granting them the time, space, and peace of mind to do so many of the things you praise them for.

"Once in the wild, or when society starts to break down, women go right back to urgently requiring men to perform these acts for them and their children. It is the same story now as it was a hundred thousand years ago."

See everything in the disaster section. When society breaks down, women receive violence not protection from men. When women are integrated into disaster response and recovery, the outcomes are much better for everyone. We don't "urgently require men" in these situations. Statistically speaking, we would be better off without them.

"'Men created the need for protection'… some men definitely do, but the amount of protection they have afforded us both individually and structurally far outweighs the harm that these men do. It may be hard to see, but as I explained above this just illustrates how effective so much of the protection is that we can take it for granted."

What protection Anon? We've established that men and the patriarchy are responsible for the vast majority of violence against women, for women's poorer outcomes in natural disasters, for the creation of man-made disasters, and for women's poorer outcomes in communicable and non-communicable diseases (the leading cause of death worldwide).

We've also seen that women's integration into disaster response/preparation and medical work/research vastly improves everyone's outcomes.

So where exactly is the protection? What are men doing that women can not, do not, or could not?

(How many more women would have survived without the men to create these problems in the first place?)

"I don’t say this to downplay the suffering of people who suffer at the hands of men, and I hope that comes across. "

I don't think you're downplaying the suffering you acknowledge. I think you are vastly underestimating the amount of suffering that comes at the hands of men and vastly overestimating the amount of support/protection they provide.

"'Men protect women from other men and then expect us to be grateful': Honestly..yes, if a man protects a woman from a violent or harmful man then it’s perfectly reasonable to expect some level of gratitude.

You appear to be interpreting this statement as if I meant it for individuals when I am talking about classes (hence the plurals).

It's reasonable for any individual person (of either sex) to be grateful for protection from another person (of either sex).

It is not reasonable to expect women (as a class) to be grateful to men (as a class) for creating the very issues they "protect" us from.

"Of course that doesn’t mean women should be subservient to men or whatever."

Great, on this we agree.

"If anyone protects anyone then it’s fair to expect gratitude."

Sure, as I said above. I should note, however, that many men use this expectation of gratitude to cover for their own behavior. Other women have said it better than me, but as an example, men will use other men's violence to discourage their wives/girlfriends from insisting on an equal share of housework. Women will feel grateful he's a "good one" and ignore more subtle sexist slights.

Moreover, any protection (from anyone) is not altruistic if they expect something (e.g., sex, children, emotional labor) in return. And if they're using an implied threat of force (or abandonment to some outside threat) then it's extortion and coercion. Much of men's "protection" fails in one or both of these categories.

"You understand that individual men are not equally predisposed to abusing women, yes."

As described in the original post.

"Then you understand that a protective man and a harmful man are not part of the same entity..."

Anon, they are both still men. This is, I think, another misunderstanding of the unit of analysis. We are talking about men and women as a class.

This is no more useful a claim than the "not all men" sentiment.

"...and aren’t equally as guilty for the violent man’s actions?"

Of course an individual man who has not committed any violent acts is not guilty for another man's violent acts. But you are again talking about individuals instead of classes.

Moreover, as I've discussed in the past there are a lot of violent men. And, unfortunately, there usually isn't a way to know if any particular man has been or will be violent until after it happens.

"[my Mozart quote] I don’t see how it’s hilarious."

It's hilarious because there has been a female Mozart. Not just a female contemporary who was equally as skilled (although there are many of those as well) but a literal female Mozart. An equally skilled female composer named Mozart.

"The point of Paglia’s quote is to illustrate the general differences between the sexes using historical icons to do so. The work is more poetic rather than a statistics sheet."

And it's wrong. It isn't accurate. The poetry of the line is irrelevant if it's based on falsehoods.*

(*A note: I actually really like poetry, and am not saying fictional poetry or even inaccurate poetry is inherently bad. I am purely saying that, when discussing historical differences between men and women, the construction of the phrase is irrelevant if the history is inaccurate.)

"As she says in another passage 'genius will overcome'."

The belief that women could escape patriarchal domination if they just tried hard enough (or, worse, were just inherently good enough) is incredibly misogynistic. Further, there is no proof that such a sentiment is accurate.

"Mozart’s sister was nowhere near as influential or subversive as he, this is a myth. the fact you have to search for these contemporaries is  simply illustrating the wider point"

Yeah, and that wider point is that men have erased women from history. Women throughout history have been forced (either directly or indirectly through social pressure) to sacrifice their careers for their families. Nannerl Mozart herself was forced to give up her musical career by her family [31].

Even beyond preemptive suppression, women's contributions have been erased and stolen throughout history. This is a ubiquitous phenomenon, so much so that it's been named the "Matilda Effect" for the sciences [32]. A favored example is of Rosalind Franklin, who discovered the structure of DNA, a discovery that was stolen by Watson and Crick who later won a Nobel prize for the work [33]. There are innumerable examples of this (and not just in the sciences); I won't be listing them all here because this post is already extremely long. Just search for "historical women in [field]" and you will get dozens of results (or more).

Between women's social suppression, men's intentional erasure, and society's emphasis on male-centric education it's no surprise that men appear to be the primary creators. But that doesn't make it true.

"Of course there have been SOME female serial killers, but no where near as many men, and lol, no “Jack the rippers” who become urban legends for their brutality and depravity."

I mean ... this is really not a favorable point for your argument. Further, Jack the Ripper was really just a standard serial killer. (He killed five prostitutes and then mutilated them postmortem. This is pretty much a standard serial-killer typology.) The cultural obsession with him is entirely manufactured.

It's also likely that the same historical-erasure has occurred for the (admittedly few) female serial killers that have existed.

"You’re missing the point by a wide margin but I admit that the looseness of the quote is partly to blame."

I haven't missed the point, I just contest the accuracy of the statement.

"[someone else's comment] Not once did I say 'men are more human', and that is not even implied anywhere. I can’t believe I have to say this. This is just this person making things up. Recognising the ways men have contributed to the world doesn’t mean I think they’re more human somehow."

Your original ask indicates you believe that men can achieve a wider range of human experience/emotion, which implies that you believe they (have the ability to be) more human. This sort of rhetoric is often used to dehumanize out-groups.

And maybe this wasn't your intention! In which case, that's great! But you should be aware of the way your rhetoric can be interpreted and abused.

"I’ll also leave you with the full quote as I think it touches on a lot of what I’m trying to get across. I don’t agree with everything said here to be frank but as I said before this is more poetic literature meant to make a point (that we should appreciate men’s contributions as well as their failures) than a data sheet. "

I've already explained why poetic literature – in this context – is irrelevant.

Now I'd like to take a detour into the originator of the quote Camille Paglia.

This woman, despite her claims, is not a feminist. The following quote should illustrate that on its own. But in addition to that, she has overtly supported pedophilia and attempted to associate them with the gay community [34]. She also supported "pornography, child pornography, snuff films" [35].

Now, she has since retracted those views – to an extent, and I think it's important to allow people room to grow and admit they were wrong. But the book you are quoting to me, is where she expresses these views. I would no more accept the views of a pro-pedophilia, pro-pornography, anti-feminist on woman, than I would accept the views of a white-supremacist on racial minorities. Indeed, I regard anyone who would accept such views with suspicion.

Finally, I'll address the quote from Paglia ("Camille Paglia, "Sexual Personae" 1990").

Her entire quote is profoundly anti-feminist. I've also addressed almost all of it in the above sections. So, most of this will be pointing you to the rest of the post. But I'll also have a few specific notes.

"Men have sacrificed and crippled themselves physically and emotionally to feed, house, and protect women and children. "

See above, men have not functionally protected us. Nor is there evidence that they have "crippled themselves" in any such pursuit.

"None of their pain or achievement is registered in feminist rhetoric, which portrays men only as oppressive and callous exploiters."

Men oppress women. This is the basis for feminist rhetoric because feminism is about freeing women from men's oppression. Would you expect a African-American advocacy group to celebrate European-American's great accomplishments? (Worse, would you implore them to be grateful?) What about Indigenous peoples? Disabled people? Gay people?

"Let us stop being small-minded about men and freely acknowledge what treasures their obsessiveness has poured into culture."

Acknowledging the pandemic of male violence against women (among all the innumerable other ways men oppress women) is not small-minded. It's truthful.

See above sections about obsessiveness.

"We could make an epic catalog of male achievements, from paved roads, indoor plumbing and washing machines, to eyeglasses, antibiotics and disposable diapers."

This here, this is a bad sign about the accuracy of her research.

We don't know who invented paved roads or indoor plumbing, since the original iterations were both invented thousands of years ago [36, 37]. To assume it was a man is sexist and unsupported.

A woman – Josephine Cochran – invented the washing machine [38]. (Erratum: Josephine Cochran invented the dishwasher, please see this post for a discussion of the inventors – including some women – behind the washing machine.)

Antibiotics are attributed to man, but as predicted by the Matilda Effect, many women were crucial to the discovery, development, and production of the drugs [39].

A woman – Marion Donovan – invented disposable diapers [40].

"We enjoy safe, fresh milk and meat, and vegetables and tropical fruits heaped in snowbound cities."

Not sure what she's getting at here, since women are responsible for half of the world’s food production [41]. (And 60-80% in developing countries.) For transportation of food, see the above sections about men's purposeful exclusion of women.

"When I cross the George Washington Bridge or any of America’s great bridges, I think: men have done this. Construction is a sublime male poetry."

Again, see men's purposeful exclusion of women. But also, even despite that, there have still been important female innovators in transportation [42]. In fact, one of the – arguably most famous – "great American bridge", the Brooklyn bridge was overseen by a woman, Emily Roebling.

We should also note that for the brief moment (in the USA) when men were no longer able to exclude women from these careers (World War II), women joined and did well [43]. (Remember, "Rosie the Riveter"?)

"When I see a giant crane passing on a flatbed truck, I pause in awe and reverence as one would for a church procession."

This is just very strange! But, again, see everything I wrote above.

"What power of conception, what grandiosity: these cranes tie us to ancient Egypt, where monumental architecture was first imagined and achieved."

Again, no. The first monumental architecture was probably Göbekli Tepe temple in southeast Turkey [44]. And there's a few dozen other examples that all predate the pyramids of Egypt. I won't list them here, but you can find them easily by searching "monumental architecture older than the pyramids." (Again, this is not a good sign for her research skills.)

There's also, again, no reason to assume these structures were the solely the domain of men. There's possible evidence to the contrary, as the earliest buildings may have been built by (at least mostly) egalitarian societies [45].

"A contemporary woman clapping on a hard hat merely enters a conceptual system invented by men. If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts."

All the criticisms from above apply. Again, we have no concrete evidence that women were not involved in early architecture. We do have proof that women, when not impeded by men, can and will do just as well as a man. As such, we have no reason to believe civilization in "female hands" would not advance as well as civilization in "male hands".

Also, this is an incredibly misogynistic statement!!

"Male conspiracy cannot explain all female failures."

I am genuinely amazed that this woman considers herself a feminist. Suppression and oppression of women by men all across the world does not constitute "female failure". The fact that we have achieved outstanding accomplishments in spite of their interference is a testament to women's ability.

"I am convinced that, even without restrictions, there still would have been no female Pascal, Milton, or Kant."

Pascal was a mathematician/scientist, so here allow me to redirect you to the Matilda Effect and this starter list [46] of female mathematician/scientists. Also try searching for "historical female mathematicians", there will dozens and dozens of examples.

I'm guessing she means John Milton? He was an author, so here's an article [47] about how women are responsible for the birth of language. And another article [48] about the earliest known author – a woman from Mesopotamia. Again, try searching "historical female author" or "historical female poet"; there are innumerable examples.

Kant was a philosopher, so have an article about female philosophers being written out of history [49]. Search for "historical female philosopher" for examples of those who remain. Consider how many have been successfully erased.

And now, for fun:

Women invented agriculture [50]

Women domesticated dogs [51]

Women created and are central to the textile industry [52]

Women created these beautiful examples of architecture [53]

Women, despite everything, greatly impacted transportation and mobility [54] including inventing traffic lanes, car heaters, the foundation for Bluetooth, GPS, and Wi-Fi, windshield wipers, turn signals, and other safety features/initiatives.

Women made even more safety inventions [55] including fire extinguishers, the fire escape, the life raft, the material used in bulletproof vests, and more

Women have always been involved in, and sometimes central to, health care [56, 57]

Women were the original midwives and child carers; they are still almost all midwives and the majority of child carers [58, 59, 28-30]

And more! So, so much more!

Pick a field Anon, search "women in [field]" and you will find examples. Remember the Matilda Effect and consider how many more you'll never know.

"Genius is not checked by social obstacles; it will overcome."

This is not just discriminatory towards women but racial minorities, the poor, the disabled, everyone who has face such obstacles. You cannot "overcome" poverty through force of will. You cannot "overcome" sex trafficking or religious abuse or domestic violence or slavery. You cannot "overcome" deprivation of necessities. Einstein and Mozart and Kant were not doing their own laundry or cooking their own meals. Even today, with all the efficiency technological advances have brought, there are still classes of people relegated to "menial" labor. Yes, people born to these conditions can be so prodigious – and supported by others – that they escape their circumstances. But what about those without support? Or those who could have done great things, but were forced – for whatever reason – to abandon such efforts. These are not failures of will power, they're tragedies of circumstance.

"What feminism calls patriarchy is simply civilisation, an abstract system designed by men but augmented and now co-owned by women."

This is so! incredibly! misogynistic!

Men were not the sole designers (see above) the assumption of "co-ownership" implies a state of sociopolitical equality that doesn't exist. The belief that patriarchy is inherent to civilization is a fatalistic anti-feminist assumption without basis in reality.

Finally, you linked a video: “The hatred of women”:

This is a sexist video overlaid by a sexist song. Men's self-pitying lament occur "having" to do dangerous jobs when they prevent women from doing them, over dying in wars they start, and the activism of women combating the problems they have created is tasteless, sexist, and pointless.

As another woman has said: the patriarchy backfiring on men, is not women's responsibility.

Conclusion

I hope this helps clear everything up, Anon. I also hope the audience gets use out of this research (even if it is not as complete as I prefer).

Anon, if you are female, I implore you not to rely on men for protection. More likely than not, it will end very poorly for you. And if you are male, then stop expecting women/feminists to solve men's male-manufactured problems. Feminism is – and should be – for and by women.

References under the cut:

20% "i, a massive genius, have deduced that the way to be a good person is to care about other people and be nice."

60% "hey wanna hear some psychotic ramblings that justify all my disgusting immoral thing urges? they're not contradictory with my analysis of what it means to be a good person, btw. and if you disagree, you're stupid. idiot."

In what world are you living in to be feeling so butthurt at a long-needed rule in regards to filming women athletes and calling it matriarchy?? Puritanism is when showcasing women's skill and talent in sports IN THE FOREFRONT, instead of being sexualized and objectified through unflattering camera angles and showing them in uncomfortable uniform, which mostly men higher-ups make them wear without consulting women first!

"Back in the day, it was considered normal human behavior to gawk at female athletes" wow OP, thanks for saying that out loud, it truly shows what you think about all this, huh!

heard yall were talking about loving men.

when leftists call you a nazi for denying sex to the men they value, stop defending your character.

when leftists call you a nazi for denying sex to the men they value, stop defending your character.

hold the line and don’t comply, ladies. 🤫