Portrait of a middle eastern woman wearing a black hijab

Sisters doin’ it to ‘emselves

Whenever you point out that men rather than women are the disadvantaged and those on the receiving end of prejudice, the first thing you get back – after the blunt denial – is: ‘what about women in Islamic countries?’ Everyone assumes that female face and body coverings (the niqab, etc) are ‘oppressive’ to women and at the behest of men. Yet both of these assumptions are false.

Female Islamic dress codes are cultural practices similar to foot-binding in China and female circumcision (genital mutilation) in sub-Saharan Africa and other regions, in that they are all cultural codification of female intra-sexual competition to secure high mate-value pair-bonded sexual partners. They signal to prospective male long-term partners a commitment not to engage in extra-pair sex.

Bear with me (for just one paragraph) while of necessity I explain this.

The whole point of pair-bonding is to increase the reproductive efficiency of the female by the presence of the male partner dissuading sexual access by low mate-value males. It is not about male control of female fertility as usually supposed. Researchers have been flummoxed by findings that pair-bonding does not prevent the female from choosing to have extra-pair sex. This should not have come as a surprise, because it’s in the female’s interests to have sex with males who have superior genes to that of her pair-bonded partner, and there is nothing much the male partner can do about it – not least because the extra-pair male would be more dominant, and likely would win any physical contest if it came down to this.

But if the male’s job is to keep away lower mate-value males, then he needs to be assured that the female does not have a propensity to engage in sex with any males not too much lower in mate-value than himself; otherwise his job as ‘guardian’ is made much more difficult, and not worth the bargain he struck of trading off (to some extent) his own relative lack of mate-value in return for his provision of a mate-guarding service.

This is how face-body coverings, foot-binding and FGM work. They are widespread fashions among women that aside from their particular cultural manifestation are essentially a unitary biological phenomenon. As with all fashions, they are not imposed but readily adopted as women wish to join the more advantageous in-group and to dissociate themselves from the relative under-dog out-group.

It requires no imposition from without. Yes, of course, men will at the behest of women reinforce such behavior. In being at the civic end of sociality (the locus of their own intra-sexual competitiveness), men are in the position that women will appeal to them to act on their behalf to where necessary help impose uniform female cultural practice. This is not in any respect ‘oppression’ by men. If anything it is a imposition on them by women to which they feel duty bound to accede.

Now, when I’m allowed to get as far as putting across this explanation, the next retort is that even if it is women themselves ‘oppressing’ each other, it is still women being ‘oppressed’, and that therefore we still need to focus on women and not on men as being disadvantaged. Well, leaving aside the question as to why you would wish to intervene in what women choose to do – and also ignoring ‘cultural imperialism’ concerns – the question to be thrown back is why, then, are the workings of male dominance and dominance hierarchy not worthy of intervention on behalf of what necessarily is the large majority of low-ranking and thereby ‘oppressed’ males? After all, political-Left analysis at one time was all about the need to ‘liberate’ the lower, working classes.

Whatever happened to that?

What happened is that the lower, working classes never bought the idea that fighting a class war would change things. Ordinary men could see well enough that ‘the new boss’ would be the same as ‘the old boss’ (as The Who famously remarked), regardless of where he had come from – not least if he had come from within their own ranks. And they could also see that when it came to war they were together with everyone within their own nation and not with their opposite numbers abroad – hardly when they would be the very people facing them across no-man’s land in the opposing trench.

The Marxist ‘progressive project’ never got off the ground, leaving egg on the faces of the intelligentsia who had taken the ethos to heart. In time-honoured fashion, this embarrassment was circumvented by finding a fall guy. The worker. Possibly the most appalling bout of pseudo-science in history then entered the fray by way of trying to provide some justification for this bizarre turn.

The now entirely discredited but once in vogue concept of Freud’s that we are somehow ‘repressed’ was married to an old notion of Engels and Marx about men and women, so that the family was envisaged as an institution whereby ‘capitalist’ values were imposed via its male head. In this way, males, as stereotypically were workers generically, became in effect personae non grata, and all non-males – women – were thereby considered their replacements as the rightful recipients of ‘liberation’ from ‘oppression’. ‘Political correctness’ was born.

From then on there was no question of considering male intra-sexual social dynamics as being at all about ‘oppression’, because males were really ‘non-people’. The only males to be concerned about were ethnic minority males (ethnic minorities like women not being stereotypically workers of old), but there was no concern from the fact of their maleness. In any case, as actually the majority of the population women made the perfect new ‘masses’. There was no need to focus on female intra-sexual social dynamics as having anything to do with women’s social ‘condition’ because by the new perspective their ‘oppression’ was not at the hands of other women – no matter how socially elevated – but by men.

So there you have it. A default assumption that what in fact women do to themselves is instead done to them by men. We see this all the time in the persistent ridiculous ‘size zero’ controversy. Women don’t really want to be super slim, we are told; they would prefer to be size 14. It’s just the all-powerful male fashion industry that is forcing them. Yet the fashion industry is female-controlled, of course; and the reason fashion magazines carry photos of waif-thin models is that this is what their market research reveals is the ideal to which, however unrealistically, their female readership aspires. It is the result of female intra-sexual competition for high mate-value pair-bonded partners.

We live in an era of unprecedented political stupidity where the notion of a particular highly implausible social ‘oppressor’-'oppressed’ dynamic is unfalsifiable. No amount of evidence, however internally consistent and externally validated, can shift PC-fascist conviction. Not until, that is, the whole edifice collapses under its own stupendous dead weight. And that is starting to happen. We live in times set to be rather interesting.

About Steve Moxon

Steve Moxon, author of "The Woman Racket," is an independent (non-affiliated) multi-disciplinary researcher/writer re the biological roots of human sociality with a special interest in the sexes (centered in evolutionary psychology / biological anthropology). Based in Sheffield, England, he also has an interest in various perspectives on the origin and development of the political backlash against ordinary people dubbed 'political correctness' (PC-fascism), and in its destruction.

View All Posts
  • Get Your Tickets for the International Men’s Conference in Detroit!

    This June in Detroit is your chance to meet nearly every leading figure in the men's rights movement. More importantly, it is your turn to take a stand for what you really believe in...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, Translators, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! A Voice for Men and WikiMANNia are working to increase knowledge of men's issues internationally through two wikis: the AVfM Reference Wiki for scholarly references, and WikiMANNia for general-interest men's issues. Volunteers are needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Those willing to step into a leadership role are also sought. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    To apply to join the AVfM Reference Wiki team or the WikiMANNia team, please write to editorial_team@wikimannia.org...

  • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

    A hearty welcome to Steve Moxon, and thanks for this great article. For those of you who have not read his book, “The Woman Racket,” it is must reading. A link to purchase it is supplied at the bottom of this page in the recommended reading list.

    • http://none universe

      If AVfM receives a ‘cut’ from book sales I’ll roust up some dinaros.
      If not I think some feather ruffling at the local liberal feminist bookstore would be my next happy moment.

      • http://menzmagazine.blogspot.com/ Factory

        Amazon Affiliate might be a good way to go…

        • http://none universe

          Well…if you say so…

          Was kind of looking forward to the grimaces and squinty eyes upon ordering and then to the enraged redface during pickup.
          Some help you are. :)

          Ok, seriously now, I’ll look into it. Thanks for the tip.

      • http://equalitythroughtruth.blogspot.com/ Jean Valjean

        This reminds me of the time, over Christmas break, that I checked out a dozen or so feminist titles and a handful of the opposite like The Woman Racket and Manipulated Man from the UofL library.

        The young woman at the counter was more than happy to purchase all the feminist titles that I had asked for. (I was delightfully surprised that they didn’t already have a copy of Jessica Valenti’s “He’s a stud She’s a Slut” and “Full Frontal Feminism”.)

        But when it came to purchasing The Woman Racket or Manipulated Man there was no money for that and I had to use the university network of libraries to find a copy and have it transferred which took a couple weeks.

        I believe this is what they call “systemic sexism.”

        I was deeply saddened to be contributing to their movement so I scaled down my book list to include only copies that they had.

        To my chagrin the woman ordered the books to be purchased anyway citing how important it was to support feminist authors and surely they would be needed eventually.

        • http://none universe

          Feminist authors need all the help they can. Who else would purchase the fruits of such convoluted sophistry besides unknowing students forced to acquire this drivel to advance themselves out of that stifling environment?
          Nice racket, huh. A guaranteed in-house marketing scheme.
          For good or otherwise it appears that members of the socially aggrieved class support one another economically.
          Know of the competent back-yard mechanic down the street who is suffering from post marital shafting? He could probably use the extra income. After awhile – evangelize.

          Damn it Steve, I’m going to purchase your book.

    • Primal

      Ditto. Mr. Moxon’s work is some the most interesting and thought provoking work, I’ve read anywhere. His contributions here are another huge coup for AVFM.

      • Steve Moxon

        Thank you. I trust you’ve read my papers and not just the book, which had to be a compromise — not least the very awkward one between science and polemic, and so as to cut down on length. My follow-up book will be a far more in-depth presentation and interpretation of research — of which there has been a lot since 2008 (when The Woman Racket was published).

  • http://menzmagazine.blogspot.com/ Factory

    I have always believed the true strength of the MRM comes from a generalized hatred of Political Correctness, the widespread acceptance (and repression) of the knowledge most PC-Think is outrageously fictional and the desire to overthrow the Totalitarianism of Identity Politics.

    This is why the MRM is apolitical, and criticizes both Left and Right wing politics. It is more a refutation of the political climate than a ‘backlash’ against feminism (which is merely a focal point along the range of this sentiment).

    • keyster

      Yes, but along the political spectrum Political Correctness, born out of Marxist philosophy, is to be found at least 90% from today’s Left. To the extent the Right engages in it, it’s defending themselves from it.

      So why criticize and alienate both?
      That leaves you on the fringe inbetween, with support from neither, allowing others (SPLC, et al) to define your position.

      From Bill Bennett to PZ Meyers – everyone has a reason to hate the MRM, or at least characterize them as “loons”.

      • http://menzmagazine.blogspot.com/ Factory

        Pointing fingers at giant holes in arguments is not seen by the general public as such a negative thing. If you think Bill Bennett exemplifies the average Republican, and want to go after that market, by all means. Problem is, like Feminists, we have noticed Traditionalists depend on male disposability to survive.

        We are not hitching our wagon to Republicans because Republicans want the exact same shit out of us that Democrats do…they just want to go about it in a different way.

        Furthermore, the fact that we attack whoever deserves it, rather than those who ‘aren’t on our side’, lends us legitimacy, rather than handicaps. We are not ‘partisan’ in our ‘politics’, so much as consistent in our beliefs.

        In this day and age, that stands out like a friggin beacon.

        • keyster

          I’ll criticize anyone regardless.
          I just know which side of the bread has more butter on it and tend to favor that side.

          Again with the “male disposability” –
          - you’ll have to defeat the PC chimera first, as the privilaged white male is the victim’s target.

          And fear not, the Republican Party is dead for at least the next 12 years if not forever. There will be no check and balance on the Party of Women, such that there ever was one of any significance.

          • tallwheel

            If you still think the conservatives are our friends, then I encourage you to watch barbarossaaaa’s latest video. It’s over an hour long, but watching it was worth every second of my time. (He even changes up the images a lot so that it is more of a “video” than just a monologue this time.) The video is an MRM masterpiece as far as I’m concerned.

          • keyster

            Never said conservatives are our friends, but they’re less an enemy than liberals. Isn’t that more obvious now than ever before?

            Name one successful social movement that has not co-opted a political affiliation. I can’t.

            Feminists are clearly adept at working the political machine. Men’s Rights activists not so much, because I guess they’re too cool for all that. Being “apolitical” might have a certian self-righteous ring to it, but it doesn’t lend itself to advancement of any significance.

            People like identity and labels.
            Like it or not you’re already considered an extreme right wing hate group because you’re for men and boys. Might as well embrace it.

          • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F (Ian Williams)

            “Like it or not you’re already considered an extreme right wing hate group because you’re for men and boys. Might as well embrace it.”

            And it would remain so forever if it were not for others here to dilute that message by not waving the “Pro Right” flag that some people do hint bloody yawn hint.

            See the part you play Keyster? And topped with the suggestion to embrace it? You are promoting a problem with your constant wailing about left-bad right-good and then suggesting the cure is to be part of that same problem by embracing that problem.

            I’m seeing your agenda here now with crystal clarity and you are becoming less and less an asset here because of it.

            Flag waving, bible thumping, tradcons and PUA’s are as useful to the MHRA as an ashtray on a surfboard.

            Quite frankly you’re not honest any more. Not to yourself anyway.

      • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F (Ian Williams)

        Keyster,

        I’ve been here long enough now to know for sure that you are a valuable contributor here. When you’re on fire you bring salience, good reason and fresh angles that can make a thread glow. This time however you surely do not.

        When I see you waving your flag with Karl on it with a red slash through him, I slap my forehead with an, “Oh here we go again” moment.

        Your comment, assertion here, “Yes, but along the political spectrum Political Correctness, born out of Marxist philosophy, is to be found at least 90% from today’s Left.” is an astonishingly vapid house of cards.

        Your observations about the level of political correctness that is borne from Marxism comes from your observations from your part of the world only. My observations from Australia tell me differently.

        Being more “leftish” here in Australia than The States, the “loonies” here from the right are an incredibly tight bunch who’s very utterances are of the polished rank and file stripe of any Marxist mob you’ll ever meet. I have met many of them. I have sat with them at posh dinners, I have socialised with them after tennis and have mixed with them at BBQ’s, parties and weddings.

        I have read their magazines, their “dissertations” and seen them pontificate on TV and the radio.

        Believe it or not, they all have two things in common and that is a sense of entitlement and get this, victim-hood. That’s right (no pun mate) they feel oppressed and hard done by by the government, the unions, the state laws, custom laws, bureaucratic red tape, and tax regulation.

        On and on they go, “Woah is me. We have to fight this. We are the true soul of the nation and only we know the truth.” I have challenged these people in their moments of complaining and I can tell you the experience is the same every time. They group together and rapid fire off stats and dates and names and history. Not just one person, but always as a group that clusters very quickly as one big person all glued together with political correctness.

        You know where I am going with this obviously.

        I’ve seen the same thing in my feminist days with large groups of people doing exactly the same thing. Yes, they’d whine about being oppressed and hard done by the government, the council, the state laws, custom laws, bureaucratic red tape, and loose tax regulation.

        It’s the exact same thing. If you feel entitled you are going to feel oppressed. Period.

        Political correctness is the mother ship of blues and it has been with us forever. In ancient Rome I have no doubt that there would have been do’s and don’t's when talking about the filthy Christians, and in 480 BC at the battle of Salamis if any of the Greeks leaders said a kind word about Persia’s Heathen apes they would have their faces blushed cherry red. “Pick up your sword you fool. We are entitled and we are oppressed. Let’s march!”

        No offence Keyster but you are looking at this through two toilet rolls and missing the bigger picture. You see reds under your bed and your pulse quickens but your thinking slows on this matter.

        If you still think that state politics and their party platforms have anything to do with the MRM you become a dinosaur wobbling about next to a dried lake who’s first and last wave of those old waters has come and now gone.

        You need to think deeper and to see sharper and you need to catch up.

        • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

          Yes, my one bone to pick with Keyster. He will absolutely not “pick on anyone regardless” Anyone that has read his posts can tell that is just flat BS.

          It’s a shame, good man, Keyster, with good values, till his political loyalties get in the way of being honest about issues.

        • keyster

          When I see you waving your flag with Karl on it with a red slash through him, I slap my forehead with an, “Oh here we go again” moment.

          You’ll have to convince Erin Pizzey and Steve Moxon too…just so ya know.

          Ignoring the fact Feminism is based from Marxist tenets of egalitarianism is like ignoring that the Magna Carta addressed liberty.

          Marxism is the foundation upon which modern feminism rests.

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

            Keyster, I don’t know anyone here that does not think feminism has its roots in Marxism, but despite what you claim, I don’t think that anyone here is fooled into not knowing that you tacitly point to the modern American right as the alternative.

            You say that we are unpopular with everyone from PZ Meyers to Bill Bennett, and that is true, but it leaves me with a question that I have framed to you a hundred ways, and from which you always run from answering.

            On that spectrum of men, from Myers to Bennett, whose asses are you willing to suck at the inevitable expense of men, so you can go after Marxism instead of feminism?

            Everyone knows you are willing, so for fuck sake just name them and be done with it.

          • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

            …Feminism is based from Marxist tenets of egalitarianism…

            There we have a bit of interesting language. It would be easy to read this as the belief that egalitarianism itself is Marxist in origin. Which it is not.

            One of the reasons I have trouble with the modern American right (and for the record, I voted for Bob Dole in 1996, George W. Bush twice, and John McCain in ’08, so it’s not like I’ve never voted for a Republican or been plugged into Republican politics) is that they seem to have (d?)evolved to a point where anything that looks even the tiniest bit like anything Marx may once have said about anything is auto-proof you’ve got a raving Marxist on your hands or some fool who just doesn’t know if we’re on a slippery slope toward communism.

            Quick, who said this?

            “For the bureaucrat, the world is a mere object to be manipulated by him.”

            Was it:

            A) George Will
            B) William F. Buckley Jr.
            C) Ronald Reagan
            D) Karl Marx
            E) Sean Hannity

            Well of course you know it’s a trick question and the answer is D. Or is it? I’ll leave you just a bit uncertain. The interesting thing is that any one of those could have said it and you wouldn’t have blinked, except might have been startled that the answer is D. (Is the answer D or did I just make that up?)

            Merely identifying that Party A shares one particular sentiment with Party B means nothing. Egalitarianism–the notion that all people should be equal in the eyes of the law regardless of race, creed, color, sex, etc.–does not belong to Marxists. It doesn’t belong to feminists either.

    • harrywoodape

      Well put Factory. I agree.
      ” I have always believed the true strength of the MRM comes from a generalized hatred of Political Correctness,”
      In other words, we are calling bullshit and looking for THE truth and being open enough to speak about it. There is no “your truth” and “my truth” as politically correct dummies will tell us…just THE truth. MRAs have evolved beyond society programming because they have been subjected to a consistent line of bullshit slanders about the male gender that do not hold up to examination and scrutiny.

      • http://menzmagazine.blogspot.com/ Factory

        Pretty much exactly it. Feminism is one face of the PC Chimera…which is itself a presentation of Identity Politics.

        And really, when it gets right down to it, it is the Hypocrisy of Identity Politics that people find so disdainful. Some animals are more equal than others didn’t sit well as a plot device, it won’t sit well in Politics.

  • Near Earth Object

    Good read and thanks.

    “We live in times set to be rather interesting.”

    And you will get no argument here.

  • Kimski

    It’s amazing how many self imposed restrictions that wome will put themselves through in order to attact male attention, that are turned into being “oppression” by women in other nations, who doesn’t have the faintest clue about the subject they’re talking about.
    And it’s a looong list of things they will do to themselves and eachother to get there, gents.

    Btw. Completely agree with Factory here. Political Correctness is a huge pile of BS, basically set up to keep one from saying what is obvious to most, but might hurt someone’s ‘feewings’.
    And we all know who that ‘someone’ is…

  • thefeministmra

    “Researchers have been flummoxed by findings that pair-bonding does not prevent the female from choosing to have extra-pair sex. This should not have come as a surprise…”

    And yet people are still surprised by it. Many years ago I dated a woman who thought marriage as the ultimate sign of fidelity. I expressed the notion that marriage does not prevent people from seeking out alternative companionship. She naturally didn’t believe me at first, so I loaded up a few dating sites and provided her evidence of several married women who were, to quote them…

    “Looking for that spark again.”

    “Just needed attention.”

    “Seeking what my husband can’t give me.”

    “Deserve to be happy.”

    …and other similar jargon. She became quite disturbed that her end goal (the source of our eventual split) was being treated so poorly by women. I didn’t bother asking her why when it seems to be the goal for so many women, they are so quick to abandon it. Because that’s a whole other… crazy thing…

    • Kimski

      I actually came across one a couple of years back that wrote:

      “My husband is dead to me. I just want to be fucked.”

  • Aimee McGee

    Any woman who has experienced ‘othering’ will tell you the instigator is always female and if there is male involvement he/they are low level betas hoping to improve their status.
    I had a recent brush with being ‘othered’ because I wasn’t emotional enough for another woman’s satisfaction. Yep, made a mistake, gonna seek a solution, not cry about it. I’m kind of like ‘whatever’ now, but it hurt like hell when it happened.
    Females don’t call each other creeps, but they sure as hell ostracise women and girls who are different. Most women then conform. I have and plan to continue to ‘flick the bird’ at these efforts!

    • AntZ

      I learned something from your post. The word “othering” is powerfully descriptive. I have witnessed this happening before, but at the time I did not understand its purpose or its power. Thank you for explaining.

      • Aimee McGee

        I’ve been subject to othering much of my life. I suspect part of what makes me a zeta is that experience…because trying to conform was never successful, so I just stopped trying.
        Othering is a powerful tool to conformity, I’ve seen some scary stuff being agreed to by other women just to avoid being ‘othered’.
        Glad my writing about this helped you ‘get’ this…it’s such a uniquely female behaviour :(

        • http://equalitythroughtruth.blogspot.com/ Jean Valjean

          I’m going to respectfully disagree on othering being “uniquely female behavior.”

          Racism, religious intolerance, and the bullying that goes on against gays and more perennially hetero males are all forms of othering.

    • http://pathologicallyunpc.wordpress.com/ AzureBlue

      I have experienced ‘othering’ too, and I can confirm that it is always women who do this. It awards them great results too, when I was younger I would ingratiate myself just to be ‘accepted’ again. Not any more though.

      • TheBiboSez

        Women need to reject the “Patriarchy” so they can control each other even more effectively than they already do.

        Oh, and folks, AzureBlue’s marvelous “The Diary of a Radical Feminist” is amazing. Just click on her name above to go there.

      • Stu

        LOL. Your Dairy of a Radical Feminist is so close to the truth it’s barely recognizable as satire lol. In fact, for some, it would be a pretty accurate description of how they arrived at Radfemhub lol

        • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

          Ah, I was wondering about that. I hadn’t set down to read it and I was wondering. Maybe I need to read it. :-)

    • Near Earth Object

      Further to “othering”…

      Another story or two from the Radical Feminist Indoctrination Center.

      I was there for quite a few years, so I saw many people coming and going.
      On the coming … now and again, a woman would join our staff. Initially and across some time, she would present as pleasant and all that is likely to entail. Over time, via peer pressure (now, “othering” in my mind), she would be taught to stop saying ‘please’ or ‘thank you’ when addressing males. Over time, via “othering” she would change her laugh (how to I put this) from expelling to an inhaling laugh centered in the back of the throat, which is known as a ‘dismissive’ laugh.
      On the going (and I have written about this on another thread at AVfM), every male, less one, that was there when I arrived, was gone by the time of my departure.

      Truly, a toxic henhouse!

  • AntZ

    “… even if it is women themselves ‘oppressing’ each other, it is still women being ‘oppressed’ …”

    What makes MGM and FGM barbaric is the age of the victim. Adult men and women are entitled to voluntarily requests body modification (to increase market value, or for whatever reason). Children and infants cannot consent, and should never be subjected to non-medical body modification.

    My adult brother once toyed with the idea of voluntary MGM so that he could “last longer” during intimacy. I did not say a word. Not my business.

    There are many legitimate legal targets for women’s rights. Sadly, feminists pay minimal lip service to these things, because their real interest is supremacy at home … not equality abroad.

  • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

    I have a different, perhaps complimentary, view.

    I think FGM, the burqua, foot binding, corsetry and feminism are ways of enhancing women’s appearance of hypoagency.

    Women engage in these practices to inflate their vulnerability relative to men thus taking on a faux infancy. Jus like some forms of innocuous animal take on the colours of a venomous one for protection. This enables a more efficient exploitation of men’s protective instincts thus results in the centring of women’s protection and provision in society.

    • keyster

      It’s serves to openly differentiate and position the female from the male as unique humans. Feminists hate that. Perhaps if men had to engage in that dress and those practices equally, everyone would be happy…except the women of course.

      • Keith

        Are you saying that the tie (leash) the shirt “cuff” and shirt “collar” as descriptive restraints aren’t equal practices, if not more so.

        Our eyes are forward facing, that makes us predators and women no are less a predator. Men are restrained predators women are not. Their bindings are designed to attract prey.

      • http://equalitythroughtruth.blogspot.com/ Jean Valjean

        Women definitely would not be happy about this.

        Men’s value to women is as beast of burden. A man who has his neck lengthened with rings, or two inch long finger nails can’t very well do labor now can he? But if these things reduce a woman’s ability to perform labor then all the better.

        Women’s helplessness (even self-created) triggers male helping behavior. What better way to signal to a man how he can serve you and thus gain access to reproduction than by being helpless. What better way to be helpless than to bind your feet so you can barely walk.

        Even women who have careers and status find a way to portray themselves as victims. They go to online dating sites and lament the lack of quality men and how she is so mistreated, and won’t some “good” man come along and treat her like a lady?

        Female victimization is just a way to manipulate men into giving women what they want. They’ve been doing it for thousands of years. It’s genetic by this point.

        • keyster

          There’s alot of power in helplessness, but it doesn’t hurt to be visually really cute and cuddly to the helper too.

    • Kimski

      Just curious, but do you think it is decisions actually based on cognitive decision making, or more based on traditions, customs, or a ‘that’s what we’re supposed to do as women’-kind of thinking, Typhon?

      • Aimee McGee

        My Mum has memories from early childhood (in China) of seeing women in feet-bindings. She said even then she could see that these women had a lot of power and status.
        I doubt it is thought out ‘rationally’ in most instances, but I do know that women who try to defy conventions will be given reasons to regret their defiance by other women and often by their close female relatives

        • Kimski

          “..but I do know that women who try to defy conventions will be given reasons to regret their defiance by other women and often by their close female relatives.”

          The reason I’m asking, is because I’m still having a really really hard time coming to terms with the herd-think that even makes that kind of submission possible, Aimee.
          I’ve never considered myself as belonging to any group until I became an MRA, and have always had little more than contempt for the ones who made decisions based on what the group they identified with might think.
          Almost without any exceptions, anyone who have ever tried to make me do things based on that kind of thinking are part of my past now, right down to my own family.
          I just don’t get it. Don’t these women have an obligation to live their OWN lives to the fullest?

          • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

            “Don’t these women have an obligation to live their OWN lives to the fullest?”

            There’s an existential void at the centre of the feminine experience.

            Ironically men and women are each other’s freedom.

          • Near Earth Object

            “Ironically men and women are each other’s freedom.”

            I like that!

          • Kimski

            @Typhonblue:

            “Ironically men and women are each other’s freedom.”

            Yeah, sad that is has come to all of this, isn’t it..
            You get my vote for comment of the week with that one.

        • http://equalitythroughtruth.blogspot.com/ Jean Valjean

          I would like to point out that foot binding was common among all but the lowest classes.

          Women of the lowest classes had to work after all. In fact, they were probably doing the work for the women in the upper classes who had their feet bound.

          So, yes, you are correct about these women having power.

    • TheBiboSez

      Quite often I’ve notice the most competent and skilled blue-pill women often act the ditziest in order to deflect the jealousy of other women (and sometimes the men) they are competing against. The scene comes to mind from “Columbiana” wherein the female assassin plays a drunken party girl in order to get arrested so she can kill her jailed target AND be dismissed as a suspect.

      Guys, if you are ever playing poker with a woman who turns up the ditzy, think twice before you call her bluff.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/MrShadowfax42 MrShadowfax42

    The only decent reason for speculating “which group” oppresses “which other group” is to counter the lies told by feminists about how it is all MEN oppressing WOMEN. Which Steve does so well above.

    The fact is, people who are genuinely being oppressed deserve help, regardless of which “group” is allegedly doing the oppressing.

    As for the argument “well it is mainly men who are oppressing men so, what can we really do but shrug”, the correct response would be to ask the person about the following situation. A black man is accused of raping a black woman. Should we therefore do nothing about the accusation because “it is black people who are oppressing/assaulting black people”? What’s that you say? No?

  • Keith

    I sat in an Iranian store on a bag of rice discussing the hi-jab with a women that was wearing one. She made it clear that it was her choice followed by cultural explanations for why she chose it. I was astounded by the thoughtfulness of her presentation and how she described the effect of her choice on her partner and her family. It was completely without dogmatic political correctness. She described it as a personal choice with familial benefits, wow.

    Then her husband walked into the store and witnessed the conversation between myself and his wife. Strangely there was absolutely no representation of suspicion towards me from him. He greeted me with the same welcoming exchange his wife had. I learned more about intimate relationships in those two hours than all the hours I’ve spent in relationships with Canadian women. Who’d of thunk it.

    • Aimee McGee

      Keith, I’ve had a fair number of female students wearing hijab and niqab, and know that many educated Muslim women wear this as an expression of faith. I’ve talked families with Muslimas and many have reflected back surprise at how many values our respective families shared. I come from a fairly traditional extended family, but for some reason my parents got the gender equality message and imbedded it into our family life. Although we had strong gender role models, there was equal attribution of value to each gender and an acknowledgement of different roles and strengths.

      I think much has been lost through the nucleation of families…so few people in the West know anything at all about how extended families can nurture and firm us into compassionate and empathic humans

      • Keith

        Aimee the sad part is in the west we are reduced to the relationships between men and women as a cultural definition. You are not a person you’re a “woman” and I am not a person I am a “man”. All we have to exchange is the political context of the two roles.

        Families, friends, children no longer exist. Just men and women and the space in between. We have slaughtered the context of every other relationship to sell a basket of lies. As a person I will exchange with anyone willing. As a man I will only exchange with men, as a man all other exchanges are criminalized. The moment you tell me your a woman and I’m a man the communication and exchange is over. Every time without exception. Sadly I think it has to be that way until we collectively wake up.

  • keyster

    Muslim women are obviously suffering from mass Stockholm Syndrome, much like American women once were in the 1950′s, until they were convinced they were victims of men.

    First order of business is to kill Allah and abolish the Koran. Only then will Muslim women be “liberated” from patriarchy, and adopt their respective governments as protector/providers.

    Marxism and Religion don’t mix.
    Before you can exploit the malcontent woman, you must kill your God and His moral code.
    Then you control the man and form of governance over the loyal proletariat.

    • Keith

      I think you will find a new religion emerging thanks to feminism and it’s governance, “Islamic Christians.”

      People pushing back against corrupt governance. With ferver.

  • http://none universe

    Yes, undoubtably a good concise summary overview in Mr. Moxon’s writing on this topic of FGM.
    And yes, as the headline to it so also adequately conveys, the ‘sisters are a doin’ it to themselves’, indeed.

    While this article may not factor as being representative of the current cultural paradigm and thereby anthema to the drones schooled in the assiduous feminist makeover of their own issues I suggest that not only will people become awakened to the ideas within this issue because of the article but also that there are many others who already know of such events. The latter of such have yet to come forth with confirmation. I refer to not only those living in regions where FGM is practiced.

    All said – there is hope in correcting the base authoritarianism of the vociferous minority.

  • Phil in Utah

    Steve Moxon is writing for AVfM now? Guess there’s no stopping us!

  • TheUnknown

    Foot-binding and FGM are women doing it to themselves in no more a way than MGM is for men. It’s often done at such a young age nobody can be expected to fully consent. I’d also contend that, assuming these are for sexual competition, it’s much more likely that they act by exaggerating sexual traits (small feet, smooth privates) rather than by promising fidelity.

    Your example of “size zero” fashions comes closer, as something individuals clearly do to themselves, though that’s also an exaggeration of a sexual standard rather than a promise of fidelity. Unfortunately the scores of feminists who actually believe that men are forcing women to do this to themselves are so out of touch with reality that no analogy will make a difference.

    • Steve Moxon

      Indeed MGM and FGM are equivalent in both being intra-sexual phenomena. They are respectively women and men ‘doin’ it to ‘emselves’ in that sense. That is the point I’m making. Self-evidently, individuals do not self-mutilate their genitals.
      Given that all three phenomena — FGM foot-binding and Islamic female dress codes — are clearly related, then an ‘exaggerating sexual traits’ argument seems to be a non-starter, whereas ‘promising fidelity’ is obviously applicable generically.

  • Wendy

    When I first started seeking out information on men’s rights and was watching all the youtube videos of JtO and GirlWritesWhat, I noticed that often there would be the commenters who would say “How can you say men have problems when women in X country don’t have driver’s license/aren’t allowed to attend school/can’t vote/are so oppressed?”

    My thoughts were always that, first, a lot of those oppression tactics (for lack of better terminology) were cultural or religious in nature (such as the burqa or hijab), and, second, that saying that was the equivalent of saying, “How can you worry about industrial pollution in our country when X country hasn’t had an industrial revolution yet?”

    If we can establish gender egalitarianism in countries like the UK, US, Australia, etc, where men’s rights are in such danger or nonexistent, then maybe we could set an example for those other nations to follow and they won’t ever get to the point we’re at, where they are extending special privileges to women in an inane attempt to “make up” for their “oppression”.

    • keyster

      Fundamental Muslim women are very proud and honored to abide by the teachings of the Koran, including the dress code and deference to the father or husband.

      Christian women once held a similar position 100 years or so ago.

      This the conundrum that Leftist-Feminists find themselves in and we’re attempting to exploit. Women’s Lib vs. Cultural sensitivity towards Muslims. As long as they self-segregate in places like UK, France, Canada, Sweden and Michigan – they can only hope no one will notice how horrific Muslim women are treated. Once they start mingling among the caucasian uppers, feminists will have a lot of splainin to do.

      Note how mysteriously silent of Muslims they are now.
      Perhaps terrorism works after all in certian circles.

      • http://www.youtube.com/user/Correctrix/videos Correctrix

        You manage to turn every post into a whinge about ‘Leftists’, etc. This is a men’s rights site.

      • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F (Ian Williams)

        Keyster,

        Once again your “Reds are naughty” flag is flapping in the breeze expelled from your big boring gob. You juuuuuust had to slip that anti left comment in the mix there didn’t you?

        Did you write this bit first (“This the conundrum that Leftist-Feminists find themselves in…”) and then write the rest to wrap around it like a body cast around a pimple on your bum?

        Correctrix is right (not left) with her comment. She is reflecting the truth that more and more people are now hearing the old and crackling dirge in your comments.

        A red under your bed? You have a pterodactyl under your bonnet and it’s echoing your own dinosaur thinking. Are you aware that you are increasingly coming across as a petulant and obsessive man?

        Change the record mate as this ain’t a BBS from Gopher where DOS and ten bucks an hour will get you high on a monochromatic monitor.

        • Peter Wright (Tawil)

          “Correctrix is right (not left) with her comment. She is reflecting the truth that more and more people are now hearing the old and crackling dirge in your comments.”

          Like Correctrix suggested he turns all his posts into sulky protests about everything AVfM stands for. He’s very welcome to his views, but I scratch my head and constantly wonder why he is here…. what does he get out of this place?

          Keyster obviously came to AVfM with an enthusiastic assumption that his dogmas had found a perfect home. Over time the enthusiasm has incrimentally crumbled as he discovered this place is not a close fit, and that its becoming less close as the discourse takes shape. His experience might be akin to seeing a prized Chevrolet slowly rolling off a cliff but having no power to intervene except to watch the spectacle. And he continues to watch…. and watch and watch.

          I find it interesting to contrast Keyter’s standard response to R. E. Estephe’s who says, “Personally I would have been happier had traditionalist approach worked out but we are now way past the mark to have any hope for that. So I embrace most camps of the MHRM… We need unity — because the wild princess horde needs to be stopped from their looting and vandalism. Unity for us – disunity for the wild princess horde.”

          Like Robert I too could have been content in one of the less-misandric traditional frameworks that worked reasonably for everyone…. but that possibility has been severed by feminists with sure and mighty strokes. And considering the nature of most traditionalism (men as utilities for civilization and queenly wives) that is a good thing.

          However as far as I can tell Keyster is providing an extremely valuable service to AVfM by showing a contrast between AVfMs mission and his diametrically opposed own. He receives downvotes as much or more than upvotes, and almost everyone disagrees with his views. This provides excellent clarification to newcomers of what AVfM does and doesnt stand for. Perfect!

          I used to hold my breath and hope he’d find sense in what is happening here and get onboard…. its not going to happen.

    • http://none universe

      ” “How can you say men have problems when women in X country don’t have driver’s license/aren’t allowed to attend school/can’t vote/are so oppressed?” ”
      – Yes, how does one address such incredulity?
      ‘That the issues concerning cultural norms of regions you know little about take precedence over issues plaguing those of whom you know in your own?’

      It’s the Amnesty International syndrome.

  • harrywoodape

    Muslim culture and traditions are constantly under attack. Corporations find the Muslim religion to be quite difficult to eradicate and it gets in the way of programming little Muslims to be good little consumers. Because Muslims have strong family values and adhere to a God other than Television.
    The ongoing attempts to exterminate Muslims from the planet include slandering Muslim culture as being oppressive towards women and being evil and dangerous…not to be trusted.
    The truth is that much of the efforts to radicalize Muslims into becoming violent against the West were perpetrated by the CIA and it`s Western allies. The CIA and all Western intelligence agencies basically serve global agendas of the elite…who see Muslim culture as a competitive ideology that they intend to destroy the same way they denigrate all men…with lies and disinformation.
    You can`t get people to support wars unless you dehumanize and tell atrocious lies about the enemy.
    Muslim women are proud to wear the Hijab and Burka and consider it more dignified and appropriate than Western fashion. The Muslim woman is proud to put her family and religion first over her vanity. These women are loved and cherished by their men for their responsible choices. Muslims love their children too! Shocking isn`t it?

    • Bharat Mahan

      Harrywoodape, as a South Asian Hindu with strong family, cultural and anti-corporate values, I see the Saudi-ization of my country and culture quite differently. Please scroll down and see my longer comment about this global phenomena below.

  • John A

    I’ve got a different take on Burqas and FGM. In a polygamous culture the last thing that older rich and powerful women want is a lot of very pretty and horny young women strutting their wares in front of their husbands. The origins of these cultural traditions are hard to trace, but I’m sick of hearing people blame men for every cultural hardship that women face. I don’t understand why any man would support FGM and burqas were not designed for the enjoyment of men.

    Slightly OT. Gender based violence in the middle east? Don’t worry they’re only male civilian victims.

    http://www.smh.com.au/world/aleppo-massacre-68-bodies-found-near-river-20130130-2djgn.html

  • All Contraire

    I would submit that there are also many women, especially in conservative cultures, who feel relieved from the pressure to have sex. But, still, that merely reaffirms Moxon’s point that it is her choice, and not imposed by men.

  • Skeptic

    Thanks Steve for an interesting read.
    There’s another consideration about the burqa I think worth noting. Contrary to feminist proclamations about it being a sign of women’s powerlessness, women who don the garb give themselves considerable power.
    For the fact is something like 70% of human communication takes the form of non verbal communication – body language, facial expression, socio-metrics. So whilst a woman in a burqa can see the non burqa’d person’s feelings, attitudes and intentions she herself remains hidden and has a kind of advantage which she may choose to exploit.
    That’s why personally in the presence of women wearing full burqas I always feel creeped out.
    Trust feminists to get it backwards!

    http://www.thepunch.com.au/images/uploads/burqa_demonstration_ap.jpg

    • http://equalitythroughtruth.blogspot.com/ Jean Valjean

      @Skeptic

      I tend to agree with you so long as the hijab is on. But people who are open faced have a lot more practice at controlling their emotions.

      For this reason, women who wear a hijab may be at a disadvantage once it comes off. If she can’t practice at lying and learn from the trial and error then I would think she would be at a disadvantage if she were inclined to be untruthful to her husband.

      This is merely a theory but it does play into Moxon’s theory about women making themselves more valuable for high status males.

      If she can’t lie to him then he has more reassurance that she isn’t pair bonding with anyone else.

  • Steve Moxon

    John A’s point about already and well-mated women feeling vulnerable to sexually receptive nubiles is a related facet of the female intra-sexual competition I’m discussing.
    John also makes the point that I’ve made myself elsewhere: that the notion that these female practices are at the instigation of men does not make the slightest sense when you consider that the males losing out are high mate-value, and therefore the very males with the ability to acquire extra-pair sex partners these female practices thwart.

  • Dazza

    Great article Steve. I have a question.

    “Researchers have been flummoxed by findings that pair-bonding does not prevent the female from choosing to have extra-pair sex. This should not have come as a surprise, because it’s in the female’s interests to have sex with males who have superior genes to that of her pair-bonded partner, and there is nothing much the male partner can do about it – not least because the extra-pair male would be more dominant, and likely would win any physical contest if it came down to this.”

    What is your advice for men in the future? If you are just an average guy and you pair bond, do you accept the fact that your partner will want sex with a higher value male and to stay in the relationship with that dynamic?

    My personal opinion is that there must be a better way. Sure biology is what it is, but one can’t help feel that being cuckolded their whole life is a pretty sucky way to live.

    • Sting Chameleon

      She might want it, but that doesn’t mean she’ll actually get it. Ever wondered why there’s so many unhaaappy women?

      As for myself, I’ve decided to not play that wicked game, if I want sex I’ll just hire a professional.

    • http://equalitythroughtruth.blogspot.com/ Jean Valjean

      It’s one thing for her to want the sex and another for her to get the sex.

      Obviously there’s not much you can do about her desire for extra-pair sex and really it shouldn’t bother you at all. After all, most men want extra-pair sex with beautiful women.

      What should bother you is if she achieves her goal. For this you should protect yourself with a good pre-nup and paternity test all offspring and be prepared to end it all if she cheats or produces offspring that isn’t yours.

      That said, I think Game Theory is very valuable here. Behaving in a way that keeps you on top not only is good for you but it is also good for her.

  • http://equalitythroughtruth.blogspot.com/ Jean Valjean

    Wow! Steve Moxon. I’m a huge fan.

    ” the question to be thrown back is why, then, are the workings of male dominance and dominance hierarchy not worthy of intervention on behalf of what necessarily is the large majority of low-ranking and thereby ‘oppressed’ males?”

    Given that this is not a rhetorical question, I believe the answer lies in the Theory of Obligation Inequality (TOI).

    This theory holds that between groups of men and groups of women, if the first has obligations to the second, but the second has no reciprocal obligations then group 2 will view itself as oppressed and group 1 will be viewed as the group with power. However, in this dynamic it’s quite the opposite.

    It works like this and I’ll try to be brief.

    Men are obligated to protect women. Women have no reciprocal obligation to protect men or women. Therefore, whenever a woman is harmed then all the blame falls on men; not just the man who inflicted the harm but all men for not stopping that man or providing protection. Even when women do harm to themselves they do not feel it is their fault because women have no obligation not to make stupid decisions. Some man, some way should have protected her from herself. (Examples would be unwanted pregnancy, unrealistic beauty standards, lower pay, etc.)

    No doubt the male genetic predisposition to defer and the female predisposition to discriminate against men plays a huge part in all this. But it does not seem to explain the very illogical double standards that play out. I believe that women are not being illogical, or obtuse, but rather that they truly do not feel they have reciprocal obligations. If men are harmed by feminist policies women feel no responsibility because it is not nor ever has been their obligation to protect men.

    This dynamic is IMHO the cause of so-called patriarchy.

    That is, that after thousands of years and thousands of failures women continued to demand protection from all things. ie. hunger, danger, cold, etc. And men, including those men of power, have slowly empowered all men to achieve all these goals. Over time we find that all the “power” appears to reside in men and yet very often male authority only exists to serve the interests of women and children.

    Further, I believe that the primary difference between patriarchy and feminism is the inclusion of the state as a primary obligor to women. And just as “patriarchy” has empowered men so too does the state now empower itself by growing to ever larger and unsustainable proportions.

    I believe that TOI explains a great deal of aberrant female behavior such as their proclivity towards divorce, out of wedlock birthrate, double standards regarding domestic violence, rape, etc.

    I’ve often asked feminists who were caterwauling about “rape culture” and men’s “obligation” to protect women by telling other men not to rape; what obligations that women had to men in return? To my surprise this shuts them up. They have no concept of reciprocal obligation.

    In fact, I have yet to find a single obligation that women have towards men which is enforced by law or social custom and that women can’t get out of on a whim.

    This inequity creates a condition equivalent to slavery for men who must serve the interests of women who need not have any sort of familiar or fiduciary duty in return.

    This imbalance of obligation is a product of feminism and a cause of much of the oppression heaped on men and yet it is not named as such. We talk of equal rights and double standards but I’ve never heard anyone speak of equal obligation.

    In the old days there was a mechanism in place that prevented society from falling out of balance. That mechanism first was that women needed men. Labor was hard and women were ill suited to both perform labor outside the home and also have babies. Women needed men to do the hard work and the human race needed women to reproduce.

    The second, and perhaps more important factor was that there was no third party able to step in and throw things off balance. It wasn’t until 1848 when Marx and Engels published the Communist Manifesto and set off a slow but eventual change in the way that national government interacted with the individual citizen. And once a final impediment was lifted, universal suffrage, there was nothing to stop women from empowering the state to give them whatever they wanted. And once the computer age and birth control came about what women were convinced they wanted was to work. But in order to achieve that they had to abandon all their obligations to men and since they had the votes and political power to do it that’s exactly what happened.

  • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

    Welcome, Mr. Moxon.

    This site just keeps getting better and better.

  • Ben

    Off topic but I am sick of this mother fucking goddamned bullshit being crammed down my throat every fucking day here

    http://www.reflector-online.com/opinion/rape-culture-must-change-1.2806196

    I picked up a newspaper tonight at the gym before my workout. I didn’t even work out. I came back home. I feel physically sick.

    • http://equalitythroughtruth.blogspot.com/ Jean Valjean

      Ben,

      These people are idiots. It’s not hard to fight back by picking apart their arguments and flinging them back at their faces.

      Take for instance this quote: “According to statistics published in the Wall Street Journal on Jan. 4 2013, 14,263 cases of rape were reported in India in 2010 out of which the conviction rate was only 26.6 percent.”

      Currently, the population of India is 1.24 Billion people. If all those rape claims are true then that means the rape rate is 1 in 87,042 people.

      How exactly does this translate into rape culture?

      It doesn’t. Instead of getting mad, get even. There’s a forum to post on that thread and I recommend you do it every time they try to pull this crap.

      • corbyworld

        A worthy reply might look something like this:

        The 2010 CDC Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey showed that 56% of victims of rape in heterosexual contexts were female and 44% were male. Females were raped and males were ‘forced to penetrate’, aka raped. The only rape apologists are those (feminists) who lobby for laws that classify rape as “penetraton by the penis, finger or object” and ignore forced penetration and therefore male victims and female perpetrators in heterosexual contexts.
        How do we address a supposed ‘rape culture’ by completely ignoring 44% of the offenders and their victims?

        http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

      • tamerlame

        What sorts gang of brutal environment creates gang rapists? Perhaps if young males where not so neglected in India, perhaps they wouldn’t The grow up to be pack animals?

        The state is going to punish the people who did it, so why the uproar? Is waving the placards about in outrage going to convince psychopaths not to attack woman?

        I got a NGO worker friend who tells me about the child abuse that goes on in India. Boys are raped in state run children s homes all the time, and nothing gets done. The charity my friend worked for refused to expose the homes, in case they get kicked out by the government. (Lose funding that way.)

  • http://equalitythroughtruth.blogspot.com/ Jean Valjean

    The problem is that women have no way to agitate or exploit male sexuality in the way they would if they could wear fewer clothes.

    Indeed, the modest dress indicative of Islamic culture does limit eroticism but as always, the outlet for male sexual desire has been sex with women (generally). So then, in this regard, the modest dress disempowers women because they have fewer tools with which to attract and manipulate men to their service. But marriage still provides sex. So, men who marry get the sex and are probably more happy with it because he’s not desensitized by female sexuality. And with the population being about 50/50 and with women being roughly equivalent in looks (because no one knows what she looks like) then this should be very equalizing for all involved. Women can gain no real advantage.

    Indeed, for the outliers, the extremely beautiful women, modest dress is probably oppressive. How could Jessica Alba gain fame without her adorable sexiness? And Jessica Simpson probably won’t become a physicist anytime soon. She has relied on her looks and signaled to men how they can serve her by pretending (perhaps) to be less than bright.

    I would say that polygamy does more to empower women and disempower men than the hijab because it reduces the number of available women.

    Women benefit because more of them end up in the protection of wealthy men which is the very goal for many of them. They have more resources, more people to help with child care, and if she’s not so fond of her husband, more women to have sex with him so she doesn’t have to.

    But men are made even more disposable. They have to work twice as hard to gather enough money to pay a dowry for a wife.

    Imagine being one of those men who are denied love and affection for the rest of your life because you can’t afford the dowry?

    When it comes to sexual economics the true imbalance comes from polygamy IMHO.

    • http://equalitythroughtruth.blogspot.com/ Jean Valjean

      I don’t understand enough about the Arab Spring to comment definitively.

      But what I do know is that the “spark” that set it off was a young man’s self-immolation in front of a government office.

      Apparently there was some dispute about the fine (bribe) levied against his fruit stand that virtually impoverished him by seizing a month’s wages thus preventing him from meeting his familial fiduciary obligations.

      And who was this government functionary? A woman, corrupt as any other official of the like.

      And what familial obligations were left unfunded? He was working to pay his sister’s tuition to college. An education that he himself was denied.

    • Steve Moxon

      Hi Jean
      A large degree of polygamy — properly ‘polygyny’ — is the situation in all cultures (in ours it’s just more clandestine — as Richard Dawkins labelled it: serial monogamy, ‘mistresses’, affairs). Women desire from males ‘good genes’, and given males have virtually no limit in the number of offspring they can sire, then a woman easily can share a high mate-value (high-status — well endowed with ‘good genes’) with several other women. Resources are merely one indicator of ‘good genes’ (albeit a good indicator, and in effect a concise summation of male attributes), so it is no matter to the woman that her male’s resources are divided between several or even many women and may then not amount to the same as if instead she had opted for a monogamous pair-bond.

  • Bombay

    OT. This article could have easily been written by someone here. LOL

    “ARLINGTON, TX—Calling the transformation both delightful and stunning, friends and family members confirmed Tuesday that 17-year-old Ashley Parker was blossoming into an absolutely gorgeous object.”

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/teenage-girl-blossoming-into-beautiful-object,31061/

    • Kimski

      This is the one that made me fall out of the chair laughing:

      ““Ashley used to be one of the brightest and best students in my class,” said Powell, recalling the former girl who once consisted of more than a single, surface-deep dimension.”

  • Steve Moxon

    Dazza asks if there can be any advice for males in the wake of knowing to expect the female to have extra-pair sex with higher mate-value males. There is none other than to desert if you feel sufficiently wronged. It has always been the case that full sexual infidelity by a partner leads much more to the man deserting than the woman. Extra-pair sex is a deal-breaker for the man but not the woman because only the female partner can bring a child into the household that is not sired by both parties. Consequently, we have evolved such that the woman is likely to be forgiving if her man has a fling — though not if he makes an emotional commitment to another partner, which thereby seriously undermines the pair-bond and is very likely to destroy it — but the man likely will not be forgiving.

    • Primal

      I’d suggest you demand that she post bond for the risks run before pairing with her. Of course, doing a ‘credit check’ beforehand based on her mother’s, her sisters’, and her friends’ historical fidelity would help prevent mistakes too. Simply put she’s got to suffer some serious losses the moment she cheats…losses paid to the man she cheated on.

  • Steve Moxon

    Jean’s points are fully in line with what we expect and indeed see from biological/evolutionary principles, with any cultural superstructure a manifestation of this. You can describe some of this and put it forward as a theory, but this will be descriptive and not explanatory; and inasmuch as it does not cite underlying biology risks veering off into assertions that are mistaken.
    It’s very clear indeed that men are under obligations towards women generically, and that women are under no reciprocal obligation; and that therefore women can ruthlessly exploit this. It was, surely, ever thus.
    The more that society becomes political, then the more that the underlying biological principles amplify, and the greater is the leverage women have on exploiting men.
    This is a vicious circle, and PC is a particularly virulent extension of politicisation, not least in that it effectively disguises the underlying deep prejudice towards the male and renders even the most elitist-separatist unfairness a legitimacy as supposed egalitarianism.
    It’s a perfect storm, but all storms blow themselves out, and inevitably PC will be no exception.

    • http://equalitythroughtruth.blogspot.com/ Jean Valjean

      ” It was, surely, ever thus.”

      I think that the exigencies of procuring resources in a manual labor civilization did wonders to keep men and women in balance.

      Women could only exploit male generosity so much. A woman bound to a man for life would be in quite the pickle if she managed to work him to death while she had young children.

      Industrialization and more recently the computer age and its myriad light labor occupations has all but eliminated the balancing nature of our labor.

      It is for this reason that female competition against men while practicing hypergamy is inherently unjust and anathema to an egalitarian society.

      As a society we can do something about female competition, but we can do nothing to change women’s genetic desire for hypergamy.

  • Legion

    Loathe as I am to be that asshole with the dissenting opinion, but the entire premise of this article (footbinding/the niquab/FGM) are female-created phenomenae has a giant [CITATION NEEDED] hanging over it.

    So do the scientific claims regarding the reasons for these behaviours.

    • Iron Lightning

      Don’t ever be ashamed to have a dissenting opinion. It’s that feeling that causes the mindless group-think that has done so much harm in the world.

      Especially never be ashamed to ask for evidence. Every correct position can withstand scrutiny.

      • Near Earth Object

        “Don’t ever be ashamed to have a dissenting opinion. It’s that feeling that causes the mindless group-think that has done so much harm in the world. It’s that feeling that causes the mindless group-think that has done so much harm in the world.”

        Dare To Disagree:
        Margaret Heffernan:

      • http://equalitythroughtruth.blogspot.com/ Jean Valjean

        “That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.”

        –P. C. Hodgell

      • Steve Moxon

        Come again? My article is the case here of the dissent re group-think. The reaction by one or two in this thread is that very group-think refusing to give any alternative its first gasp of air.

    • James

      What Iron Lightning said.

    • http://equalitythroughtruth.blogspot.com/ Jean Valjean

      It curious how the cries for “citation needed” are rarely uttered when women blame men in the first place. Where is their empirical evidence that men are at fault. Where is the apparatus of male control?

      I think what proves this most resoundingly is the absence of any mechanism or structure, lead by men, which compels women to engage in these activities.

      Women, alone in their own homes, applying make-up, plucking eyebrows, waxing hairs, starving themselves, or saving their money for the next operation are acting entirely independently and for their own self-interest.

      “Autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice.” Karen DeCrow

      Or be otherwise accountable for them.

      If women feel no accountability for their part in a culture that allows war, which historically has oppressed men then why should men bear responsibility for a culture that encourages some women to bind up their feet? This is especially so when you consider that it is women who define social custom and norms.

    • Steve Moxon

      No it/they does/do not.
      Any citation itself rests in turn on a cogent argument marshalling lines of evidence, and this does not likewise require a citation that someone else has made the same connections in order that it can stand and not fall.
      Science is not about an appeal to authority, which in science is often several major findings out-of-date.

      • Legion

        Mssr Moxon: Your argument, while logically consistent, is based upon premises that you have provided no empirical proof for:

        Firstly, in regards to these practices being used as signals to prospective mates that they will not/are willing to not/less likely to engage in extra-pair copulation, in itself requires proving.

        Secondly in regards to their being imposed by women upon women. I take particular objection to this presumption as it is but a reversal of the traditional gender role, where men are free of responsibility regarding these practices and women are entirely to blame, and the fact this assertion is once again not supported by any form of empirical proof.

        Your points about the actions of Western women, r/e their own actions as independent agents rather than poor oppressed little lambs, are solidly and rationally made – these are emancipated adults making their own decisions. The same can not be said of Saudi women, or Chinese girls or indeed the victims of ANY form of genital mutilation.

        I am not arguing for the exculpation of women from their participation in these various barbarities. I am arguing that we should assign responsibility based on empirical evidence. That if women are provably exclusively (or almost exclusively) responsible, such as with the fashion industry, then we should say so. That if men are partly responsible, at least by acting as outright enforcers (as in Saudi), then we need to be honest about that too.

        Mssr Valjean: I don’t particularly care about what feminists say r/e “WIMMEN ARE OPPRESSED”. I don’t debate with ideologues. I debate with MRA’s because I can expect a standard of rational, detached inquiry rather than demagoguery.

        • Steve Moxon

          There is no such thing as empirical PROOF, only a weight of evidence; and from the commonly known facts about the related phenomena here at issue, together with recent research regarding wider topics — mate-guarding and pair-bonding — then the weight of evidence prompted me to put forward the arguments of this article.
          There is no question of evidence (never mind ‘proof’) re propensity to engage in extra-pair sex given that ‘honest signalling’ of being minded not to engage in extra-pair sex is intrinsic in these phenomena. You are bound (sorry for the pun) to be much less in the position to have extra-pair sex if you are foot-bound in the traditional Chinese fashion. Ditto if stranger-males cannot see your face/body, as with Islamic dress codes for women. Most certainly ditto re FGM, because you are much less easily sexually aroused.
          As for the female intra-sexuality: all of the phenomena are very clearly within the female domain, and all are traditionally strongly approved of by the women themselves. It would take convoluted theorising ignorant of biological underpinnings and utilising nonsensical notions re ‘patriarchy’ from sociology to come up with an explanation in terms of male imposition; and this would be far less parsimonious. So the onus is on the ‘patriarchy’ merchants to even start to be convincing. As I have pointed out, it is not evidence that males are involved in policing adherence to any of these practices, because in their intra-sexual competition males inhabit the civic (as opposed to the domestic) pole of sociality, and in their concommitent social roles they are obliged to respond to requests from women for assistance in policing.

  • Iron Lightning

    “This is how face-body coverings, foot-binding and FGM work. They are widespread fashions among women that aside from their particular cultural manifestation are essentially a unitary biological phenomenon. As with all fashions, they are not imposed but readily adopted as women wish to join the more advantageous in-group and to dissociate themselves from the relative under-dog out-group.”

    Wait what? Genital mutilation is a fucking fashion statement? Most all genital mutilation is done on infants or toddlers incapable of consent. How the hell are they readily adopting it?

    “Researchers have been flummoxed by findings that pair-bonding does not prevent the female from choosing to have extra-pair sex.”

    Alright, can you please show me some of these findings?

    • Ben

      Agreed, Iron Lightening. I take issue with this article too. I wasn’t going to say anything about it at first, but something must be said.

      Comparing female genital mutilation to clothing traditions is unacceptable to me. This author also refers to female genital mutilation as “female circumcision.” It infuriates me to see this euphamistic language being used to describe female genital mutilation.

      By the way, Moxon, or whatever your name is, anytime that you have to plead with the reader to continue reading after you have done something so outrageous as to compare women having to wear clothing that they don’t like to clitoridectomy (which is painful for them for the rest of their lives) you are acknowledging that even you realize how reprehensible your writing is.

      I did not read further and will not. It is my recommendation that Moxon’s writing be removed. This is not acceptable to me and I am disappointed to see that it passes muster with the A Voice for Men editorial staff. What direction is A Voice for Men taking???

      • Steve Moxon

        A malicious attempt by ‘Ben’ to close down legitimate debate within science is what is offensive.
        The wilful stupidity of ‘Ben’s argument is itself offensive in that it is inconceivable that it could be in good faith.

      • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

        “I did not read further and will not. It is my recommendation that Moxon’s writing be removed.”

        Let’s see. I did not read it all, but I want it removed. That about sum it up?

        Sound familiar, Ben? It should. We do battle with that myopic kind of thinking all the time. It is pretty much what we are about here, as a matter of fact.

        For that matter, I think your comment is full of shit. Shall I remove it and question your integrity while I am at it?

        Setting aside the fact that Mr. Moxon is a known and historically influential writer in the MRM, lets just take a look at your ideas on their own merits. Well, anyway, I have, and I find there are no merits.

        Mr. Moxon expressed an opinion that women were as complicit in things like FGM and foot binding as they were in the manner in which they dressed in the Middle East. Given that FGM and footbinding are almost exclusively performed by women, and that any rational evaluation of social customs of any kind reveals at least sexual co-complicity in those customs, I find his opinion to be rational and merit worthy.

        Lastly, this is an opinion piece. Mr. Moxon, nor any other writer for this site is bound to cite evidence for opinions. The rules change for pieces presented as research, and of course citation may be provided on a voluntary basis for an opinion piece, but it is not required here or anywhere else on the planet that I know of. The demand to cite research, especially as a result of the petulant demands of someone who didn’t even bother to read the piece in full, is, in my opinion, complete bullshit.

        Rephrase: completely stupid bullshit.

        A caution here. Dissent from the opinions expressed on this site are a welcome part of healthy debate. We enjoy that the most when provided by reasoned adults who do not find it necessary to promote censorship or address our columnists, who already stand up to public scorn ON OUR BEHALF, with this kind of personal contempt and invective.

        I don’t care to censor anyone. But if anyone in this exchange were to be censored by the admin, it would be you, Ben.

        Just saying.

        • Ben

          Paul, what does female genital mutilation have to do with men’s rights? Absolutely nothing. I distributed my last AVfM business card this week. Suppose everyone who received one from me visited this site and read this article in which the author engages in real, actual victim blaming?! And, yes, saying that FGM is “fashion” that is “performed” by women for women IS victim blaming. I will not back down from my position on this. Trivializing FGM in any way is not acceptable to me as an MRA and it shouldn’t be acceptable to you either. Saying that “it is just an opinion piece” doesn’t make it any better, either.

          You accuse me of personal contempt and invective but how but what’s really worse? Contempt and invective toward FGM or contempt and invective toward those who mock FGM?

          FGM is not a MRM issue. It is a human rights tragedy.

          Oh, and it was clever of you to point out that my remark about not reading further but wanting an article removed. Yes, it does sound familiar, Paul. We actually do see that all the time from unreasonable people. However, rarely — and I do mean rarely — a portion of an article can be so inflammatory that it warrants such a response even from an objective person. This is one of those rare articles.

          • Skeptic

            Ben,
            I’ve just read your response to Paul and I’m groaning.
            I think you’ve got things incredibly wrong and FGM has a lot to do with Men’s Rights Activism as many feminists will gleefully blame MEN for it.
            I’m very surprised you don’t apparently recognize that.
            So from my perspective FGM is both an MRM issue and a human rights tragedy. No need to create a false dichotomy between the two as you appear to.
            Nobody appears to be trivializing or mocking FGM either – How insulting! It’s actually a seriously discussed central focus of the whole article and many responses in the thread! So your claim seems twisted and ridiculous, as well as quite bitter to me.
            I think you seem inanely stuck on the use of the word “fashion” as though it’s some kind of minimizing adjective. I don’t read the word that way at all. A “fashion” is simply a convention, a way of doing things. Period. Using that word takes nothing away from the seriousness of the topic – unless you choose to twist the meaning to see it that way. Thus I think the wild hyperbole you talk of in it’s use is in your head.
            Also I don’t think you can escape the fact FGM is practiced in overwhelmingly the vast majority of cases by women on women.
            Your talk of victim blaming then comes off as classical victim feminist bullshit.

          • Steve Moxon

            ‘Ben’ is a usual plain slimeball man-hating PC-fascist anonymous troll without a single grain of good faith within his (or her) ridiculous brainless body.

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

            Paul, what does female genital mutilation have to do with men’s rights? Absolutely nothing.

            First of all, asking me questions and then answering them points to a possible emotional problem on your part. Since you directed the question at me, allow me to disregard your erroneous answer and actually answer it for myself.

            FGM is a rather common feminist talking point. We address all feminist talking points here, especially in juxtaposition to equivalent or near equivalent MHRM issues. We discuss selective service in relations to voting rights, male vs female reproductive rights, etc.

            Are you seriously saying that issues like wage gap lies, rape culture, and the full gambit of other feminist issues are off limits. What kind of ridiculous statement is that?

            Suppose everyone who received one from me visited this site and read this article in which the author engages in real, actual victim blaming?! And, yes, saying that FGM is “fashion” that is “performed” by women for women IS victim blaming.

            Suppose they did? So what? Is no one allowed, BY YOU, to make that point and offer it up for intellectually honest scrutiny? So my real answer is simple. If you disagree with something, make your best intellectual case. But I have a hint for you. Advertising that you did not read it, and then going on a personally attacking tirade only makes you out to be emotionally incapable of rendering an intellectually honest opinion.

            I will not back down from my position on this.

            Congratulations.

            Trivializing FGM in any way is not acceptable to me as an MRA and it shouldn’t be acceptable to you either.

            I did not see him as trivializing of FGM, at least not near to the degree as those performing the act on their fellow women. But that is kinda beside the point here. If someone told you that you could dictate what was acceptable to me as an MRA, they lied to you.

            Oh, and it was clever of you to point out that my remark about not reading further but wanting an article removed.

            No, it was not clever. It was painfully, stupidly obvious. And it summarizes the futility of every other point you are trying to make.

            Put your emotions in check, Ben. Or call Oprah and ask for a session. Matters not to me either way. The fact is you are acting hysterical.

            Moxon brought up several points that warrant discussion. I happen to agree with the content of what he said. If getting your face cut and having the skin stretched over your forehead, and if having your fat ass sucked out surgically or your breasts inflated like ballons, for the purpose of attracting a solvent male are fashion trends, and they are, we should be able to question a culture that performs FGM for the same reason.

            We may find, after that discussion, that we differ on the way we interpret each practice, and that is fine. My personal view is that it is a fashionable way in that culture to attract a man, and it is, when forced, a human rights violation, which does distinguish it from cosmetic surgery. But I also find that FGM and cosmetic surgery and manners of dress in certain cultures all share characteristics that are foolish to ignore.

            But you have chosen the dictatorial route of insisting that the discussion never take place to being with. The only problem you have with that is that it is not and never will be your choice.

            Now you have made your point, and at this time your continued dwelling on in, particularly in the disruptive way you are doing it, is a detriment to this community. Go cool your jets and allow others their beliefs, just as yours have been tolerated here.

      • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

        You should go back and read it, and try asking some questions again.

        This is something that I find is really really shocking to a lot of people:

        Female Genital Mutilation is practiced almost exclusively by women on each other.

        Footbinding was practiced almost exclusively by women on each other.

        The “repressive” Hijab is strongly enforced by women on each other, as people from those countries will readily admit.

        Honor killings–Moxxon didn’t even go there, but I will–carry a really horrible secret. You know those awful “honor killings” where a man mutilates or kills his wife, his sister, or his daughter in certain parts of the Middle East? Yeah, guess what? Study has shown that in the majority of cases, a man who commits an honor killing does so at the direct behest of his wife, mother, sisters, or other direct female relatives.

        That’s right, outright murder of women in honor killings isn’t just something women in those countries “support.” It’s something they are usually the instigators of, even if it’s a man who swings the sword.

        Understanding women’s proxy violence, and the role they have always played in social violence, mutilation, and other negative as well as positive aspects of culture is vital to talking about these things like adults.

        • James C

          There was a case in the UK of an honour killing where the mother had instigated it.
          Her son had impregnated a woman out of wedlock and refused to get it aborted. The mother ordered the son to invite her over, had the son kill her then they disposed of the body together. All of that to save her family’s reputation.

        • Steve Moxon

          Dean makes a very good point by extension about the instigator of ‘honour’ crime: usually a woman, and often the mother-in-law. [Sterotypes are stereotypes usually because they are rule-of-thumb true!] A further point is that it is likely that most ‘honour’ crime is perpetrated against men. The principal target for violence everywhere is the male who ‘violates’ the virginal girl or in cuckolding a husband arouses the wrath of the family on both sides of a marriage. Yet retribution against male sexual miscreants is then either not registered as any sort of crime at all, or is not recorded as an ‘honour’ crime for the very reason that the victim is not female. The very categorisation is anti-male sexist. Female proxy violence is also a very important component of domestic (intimate-partner) violence.
          The reason that spousal homicide figures show a preponderance of female victims is not that women don’t commit more mariticide than men commit uxoricide; it is that in addition to first-hand clandestine perpetration (the classic hidden poisoning, or ‘accident’), there is third-hand clandestine perpetration — lover / relative / friend / hired hit-man.
          The reason why DV [IPV] data in some third-world nations shows a preponderance of male perpetration is not just down to usual highly sex-differential male under-reporting, but because the female can very easily perpetrate DV [IPV] by a third party and has no need to resort to it by her own hand. In ‘traditional’ societies, relatives on both sides of the family are always very close by and on hand.

    • Steve Moxon

      The bad-tempered questions posed by this poster are addressed in a subsequent post.

  • Steve Moxon

    In response to ‘Legion’ and ‘Iron Lightning’, I’ll post separately re each point.
    First, re pair-bonding not preventing the female from engaging in extra-pair sex: This is a repeated finding from across the animal kingdom. The assumption has always been that pair-bonding serves the interests of the male partner, but all of the converging lines of evidence about mate-guarding and pairing points to the very different conclusion that it is in the female partner’s interests (primarily). Recent major reviews of the origins and development of human pair-bonding and associated phenomena (see Bernard Chapais, and Jeffrey Winking) show that this applies to humans just as much as to extant species related to our evolutionary ancestors further back down the phylogeny.

    • Iron Lightning

      Well, I’ve looked into the work of Bernard Chapis and Jeffery Winking and have not found anything by them which suggests that human females are free to engage in extra-pair sex. Chapis did use the term mate guarding to in Chapter 3 of the Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Family Psychology but he did not imply that this mate-guarding only applied to lower-value males. He wrote: “The primate data suggest that monogamy originated as a male strategy of mate guarding favoring paternity confidence and father-offspring recognition, and that operated as a preadaptation for the evolution of parental cooperation in the provisioning of progressively altricial (helpless) children.” I believe that Chapis would disagree with your viewpoint since allowing free intrusion by higher-value males would destroy the paternity confidence and father-offspring recognition that motivated men to adopt monogamy in the first place. Also note that it is easily possible for a low-value male to defend against intrusions by higher-value males through the social actions of other people interdicting the intruding male. Considering that adultery has been a hefty criminal act for almost all traditional societies past and present I find it incredibly hard to believe that females were allowed to freely engage in extra-pair sex.

      Jeffery Winking did co-write a paper called “Female intrasexual competition and reputational effects on attractiveness among the Tsimane of Bolivia” which rather mundanely states that attractiveness among people is influenced by reputation and thus people can influence the attractiveness of other by manipulating their reputations.

      Please provide a link to a scientific paper that says that human females are free to engage in extra-pair sex with higher-value males. If these findings are as repeated as you claim then you should have no trouble providing one of them.

      • Steve Moxon

        Evidently ‘Iron Lightning’ wilfully fails to read posts, and then does not look either for what is indicated is to be found in the work of researchers but something else entirely, and nor does he look at the significant, relevant work of those researchers. [He needs to read Bernard Chapais' major book, 'Primeval Kinship: How Pair-Bonding Gave Birth to Human Society'; and Jeffrey Winking's major review paper, 'Are Men Really That Bad As Fathers? The Role of Men's Investments'.]
        It seems I need to re-post so that ‘IL’ can respond in at least a semblence of good faith. …..
        “First, re pair-bonding not preventing the female from engaging in extra-pair sex: This is a repeated finding from across the animal kingdom. The assumption has always been that pair-bonding serves the interests of the male partner, but all of the converging lines of evidence about mate-guarding and pairing points to the very different conclusion that it is in the female partner’s interests (primarily). Recent major reviews of the origins and development of human pair-bonding and associated phenomena (see Bernard Chapais, and Jeffrey Winking) show that this applies to humans just as much as to extant species related to our evolutionary ancestors further back down the phylogeny.”

        • Iron Lightning

          I did look at those works. I didn’t know which works you were referencing since you originally just name-dropped those authors without referencing particular works. I admit, I just found a few preview pages of Bindy’s “Primeval Kinship” and from that I did not see any talk about females engaging in extra-pair sex with higher-value males freely and without social restraint. If this finding is written somewhere in his book then please show me what this finding is.

          I also read as much as is freely available on Winkey’s “Are men really that bad as fathers? The role of men’s investments” and his abstract didn’t mention anything about females being allowed to engage in extra-pair sex freely and without social restraint. I’m sorry that I am unable to read the full-text of the article since money is very tight with me right now and I don’t have $37 to blow on internet debates. I’ll repost that article’s abstract here:

          “Human pair‐bonding and paternal involvement have long been attributed to the need for biparental rearing of altricial offspring with extended periods of dependency. More recently, researchers have focused on the fertility benefits that pair‐bonding offers men and have re‐conceptualized paternal care as a stratagem designed to curry favor with the recipient children’s mother. These models, however, fail to explain a number of puzzling empirical findings, namely the lack of a significant and robust effect of father‐presence cross‐culturally, despite what appears to be true paternal involvement. I argue that the record is better explained by conceptualizing reproduction within unions as a joint venture, in which men’s contributions are not simply lumped onto women’s invariant levels of parental investment, but one in which men’s involvement allows wives to reduce their own allocations to parental investment and increase those to fertility (fertility model), thereby maximizing the production of the union, not simply child survivorship.”

          From this I gather that the article is about fathers using their paternal care to allow the mother to focus more on fertility. This makes sense since the mother’s nine-month gestation period is much more energetically costly than the father’s ejaculation and thus the union will be most productive if the father, being unencumbered, does more parental investment. I never disputed the fact that pair-bonding well serves the interests of the female. However, pair-bonding also pretty well serves the interests of the male.

          I’m sorry if I misinterpreted your post but I assure you that I’m arguing in good faith. If I misinterpreted something then please point it out to me. Also please note that I was only disputing your claim that human females are allowed to freely engage in extra-pair sex with higher-value males with no social restraint being imposed on them.

          • Steve Moxon

            No. If ‘IL’ reads Winking’s paper — which, contrary to his assertion through his inadequate Googling skills, is available in full on the net — Winking’s conclusion is that pair-bonding does not function to secure male provisioning: it functions to increase the female’s fertility. What Winking leaves unanswered is how this is achieved. By examining all of the other lines of evidence and the work of other reviewers, it’s clear that pair-bonding evolved as a means whereby the female could secure a male mate-guarding service — mate-guarding being to dissuade sexual access and interest by lower mate-value males, not the male securing control over the female’s fertility.
            As for females being free to engage in extra-pair sex with higher mate-value males: this is a phenomenon seen across nature, and no less in humans. In humans it is facilitated by its clandestine nature — all sex is normally non-public, and the social clout of higher mate-value males can ensure that extra-pair sex is especially so. Even when it is not clandestine it is not and never was subject to the social opprobrium ‘IL’ assumes.
            Traditionally, when a male was cuckolded it was upon HIM that the community’s scorn was heaped. He was viewed as so inadequate as a husband and a male that the custom was to force him to ride the ‘Skimmington’ (or whatever alternative local term was used). This ritual culturally encoded the man’s now lowered status.
            In what we falsely suppose to have been straight-laced Victorian times much of society from the middle middle-class upwards concerned the keeping of mistresses.
            Today, far from social opprobrium for the parties to an affair, they are all but celebrated. Indeed, if you are ‘anybody’ at all it is considered your rightful privilege to have affairs.
            As research work by Denise Cummins and others has revealed, we have deep-seated prejudices whereby rules of obligation/permission differ markedly according to status: we view what would be sexual misdemenour if it involved a low-status male instead as being acceptable if it involves a high-status male. This hardly applies only to the male participant but must rub off on the female party.
            There is of course the restraint of being within a marriage: to threaten to bring to the marriage offspring conceived other than together by both parties is a deal-breaker for the male partner, in a way corresponding infidelity never is for the female; yet notwithstanding this, the wider social reaction is as above and not the opprobrium as often supposed.

          • Iron Lightning

            Look, we could sit here arguing opinions back and forth all night but we wouldn’t get much of anywhere. That’s why I ask you to please link me those lines of evidence that indicates that the claims you are making about females being free to engage in extra-pair sex with higher-value males. Give me the scientific evidence and this whole issue will be settled.

  • Steve Moxon

    Regarding the self-evident non-consent of babies/toddlers/young girls to FGM: These are group ‘in-grouping’ phenomena amongst women, regarding which women individually and collectively show full active acceptance in surveys of all of these phenomena and wherever in the world they occur — until for whatever reason they go out of fashion. Clearly they are an imposition on individual females. Obviously such practices would make no sense as individual initiative.

  • Steve Moxon

    I used the term ‘fashion statement’ not inadvisedly. As ‘in-grouping’ phenomena they are fashions. This is not to trivialise the underlying major biological motivation of female intra-sexual competition. Fashion is cultural codification of this, taking many forms. They are all subject to the possibility of going out of fashion as the underlying motivation gives rise to a seemingly different or wildly different but related expression. Chinese foot-binding has suffered that fate. For all its unpleasantness FGM is a fashion, but as women get together to undo what they themselves produced — and note that in no traditional culture does a man carry out any FGM procedure, and in surveys men oppose it whilst their women support it — then it will also go out of fashion.

    • Iron Lightning

      Again, please show me surveys from countries in which FGM is practiced that show that the majority of men oppose in whilst the majority of women support it.

      • Steve Moxon

        Come again? Even feminists and BBC TV documentaries cite the support of women for FGM in those regions that continue with its traditional practice, and the opposition or indifference of their menfolk.
        I’m not here to wipe the arse of someone too idle to perform his own Google searches.
        Let’s see ‘IL’ come up with evidence to the contrary.
        In any case, my article here is not a paper in a journal but an opinion piece. That’s why here there are no citations and no full reference list at the end, whereas there most certainly will be in the paper.

        • Iron Lightning

          As the positive claimant it is your responsibility to bear the burden of proof. It is not the responsibility of the detractor to disprove an unsupported statement. This is a basic rule of debate. If it were the responsibility of the detractor to disprove unsupported statements then that would lead to absurdities. For example, if I were to say that I have an invisible dragon that can’t be touched, smelt, or heard in my backyard then it would be my responsibility to provide proof for that. Just because you can’t disprove the existence of my dragon does not mean that he exists.

          In the future when writing opinion pieces I would use phrases like “I think” instead of “evidence shows.” Using the later phrase type, as you have in the above piece, could give people the impression that you’re talking about facts instead of personal opinions.

          In any case I still subscribe to the Hitchens Principle: “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

          • Steve Moxon

            Nonsense. Debate works by a plausible hypothesis being put forward so as to be tested against rival hypotheses. The burden of proof is a shard one.
            A reasoned argument as is my article here is not an unsupported statement but necessarily has both internal consistency and reference to external validation. Otherwise it could hardly be put forward and would never have been accepted for publication.
            At the very least a detractor is obliged to put forward the beginnings of an argument. ‘IL’ hasn’t got an argument: just an ideologically hidebound petulant taking the ball home and refusing to play.

          • Iron Lightning

            What reference to external validation? I didn’t see a single citation. The burden of proof is to whoever makes an assertion if one side deigns to make an assertion than the burden of proof rests solely with the one making the assertion. It’s all defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof

            Link the evidence to me please, you claim to have it so please provide it.

          • tamerlame

            What is your real reason for your bad faith? When people play games like this, there is often a reason.

        • Primal

          Actually, it’s not proof but disproof that needs to be done by those who hope to show that Mr. Moxon’s thesis is invalid. Proof is impossible because one cannot test ALL of the infinitum number of possible effects which one thesis predicts are possible. But one can show that the ‘battery is dead’ simply by turning the lights on.

          I imagine that there are a number of other effects which logically flow from Mr. Moxon’s thesis. Pose some. Test some. All you need is one ‘lights on’ effect to disprove the whole thesis….and that’s what makes disproof so powerful.

          • Steve Moxon

            Yes: as I’ve pointed out, there is no such thing as ‘proof’, only a weighing of evidence across the different lines of it. Nobody anywhere in this discussion has put forward a single piece of evidence against my thesis, yet in every debate I’ve ever come across the opposition never holds back from presenting contra evidence if such is available. If we judge from the political vitriol of one or two troll posters here, the most contentious line of evidence is that from FGM, yet from even a quick look through the easily available on-line information re FGM no-one can conclude other than that FGM traditionally is practiced by women and not by men, and is supported by women but usually met with indifference, lack of knowledge or opposition by men. Of course, in places where the traditional attitudes are overlaid with widespread education, then attitudes are changing, and in some such places women may well be opposed; but this is evidence only of the impact of education, not of attitudes traditionally, which are what we need to get a handle on as one line of evidence to ascertain the intra-sexuality or otherwise of the phenomenon.

  • TheSandreGuy

    Befor reading this comment note: I like this website a lot. I read many articles every week and I have a few favorites such as JTO, GWW and Dean Esmay.

    Question: AVFM is supposed to be politically independent. So WHY do I read in a lot of articles a lot of jabs and punches to the left-wing?

    Yes feminism has it’s base on the left, and the majority of people on the left “identify” as feminists (although most have no f**ing clue what feminism actually is).

    But feminists are also found in the right-wing. There are not quite as many as on the left, but to deny that they exist is just ridiculous.

    Besides, traditionalism and chivalry (“the other feminism”) has it’s base on the right. Considering that they were the dominant forces for men’s suffering before these last 40-45 years, and are still a MAJOR source of men’s suffering today, shouldn’t they be like sitting ducks ready to shoot?

    I really don’t want to come off as “sensitive”, I just want to have a rational discussion about the neutrality of this site. You wouldn’t believe the kind of controversial topics I discuss in my everyday life, or how many of my friends are conservative while I am, as you might have guessed, a leftist. I’m not squeamish so bring it on.

    • James C

      “I like this website a lot. I read many articles every week”

      I suppose you didn’t read all of the articles this week?
      There was a lengthy post regarding Steven Crowder (a conservative) posted by Mark Trueblood earlier this week. It was concerning his conservative views on marriage and how men should “man up”, the article was very critical of Crowder.

      Furthermore, there doesn’t seem to be any criticism of “the left” in this article. There is only mention of Marxist philosophies, which is about as close to the majority of the left as Mussolini is to the majority of the right. If we want to criticise feminism we have to understand the underlying philosophy behind their movement.
      I don’t see many conservatives trying to get AVFM banned or spreading lies about the site (Or protesting lectures), so naturally a focus on debunking those who oppose us the most fervently is in order.

      If there was an article critical of Mussolini’s Fascist philosophy of “what a real man should be like” do you think a right wing MRA would be offended by it?

      • TheSandreGuy

        Yes there have recently been a few articles regarding conservatives, however these are the minority. It’s not unusual to find phrases jabbing at left-parties or leftists in more articles than the right-wing.

        Yes this particular article pertains to marxism, but keep in mind that it’s not exactly uncommon for conservatives to deliberatly lump together the left in general and the tiny cliqué who are marxists.

        Besides the mainstream feminism we see today, which is also by far the most influential form of feminism, have very little to do with marxist-teachings. I feel confident saying that at least 90% of all feminists in all western nations have never read anything from Karl Marxx what so ever.

        Mainstream feminism is instead based, ironically, on ignorance among women regarding history and current societal situations for men.

        • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

          You are completely in left field on this one, no pun intended. We even have a coined lexicon in use all over this site targeting right wing mentality. Tradcon, socon, etc, and it goes all the way back through the history of the literature here, including many articles I have written, and especially the last one, which I just posted a few hours ago.

          You might as well hear it from the source. This site is non affiliated with either left or right. In fact, most of us see that buying into the left-right battling is a complete waste of time.

          If you are going to visit this site regularly, you need to get used to the idea that YOUR side of the fence isn’t a special snowflake. And if you have problems differentiating the real from the unreal, this place will be too rough a ride for you.

          • TheSandreGuy

            How about adressing my points rather than labeling me as a “socon”?

            I don’t want immunity from critic, I just want an honest look at this site’s neutrality. I’m not a snowflake, I wont melt under the heat of scrutiny.

            I’m not interested in a battle between right or left, because only by working together can we really accomplish anything in favor of men and boy’s rights.

          • James C

            @TheSandreGuy

            He wasn’t calling you a “socon”, socon means “Social Conservative”.

            Are you a Marxist? No?
            Then nobody has criticised you or your party here.
            Some people may criticise the left when we see trade unions joining forces with radical feminists in their quest to silence MRAs. Are you suggesting we ignore these things in favour of left wing MRAs?
            Last time I checked you don’t need to be anti-male to be left wing just like you don’t need to be a social conservative to be right wing.

      • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

        “All lies and jest. Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” ~ Paul Simon

    • http://marktrueblood.posterous.com/ Mark Trueblood

      I’ve written two articles criticizing aspects of conservative female-centrism. One on chivalry, and one on marriage.

      http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/chivalry/do-you-want-chivalry-or-equality-yes/

      http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/steven-crowders-naive-and-insulting-marriage-arguments/

      You’ll also find many insights in the comments of both articles.

    • http://equalitythroughtruth.blogspot.com/ Jean Valjean

      I believe AVfM is neutral in the way that the Federal Government is supposed to be neutral about religion. It must show no favor nor promote any religion over the other. However, the denizens of the land, provided they are not government officials, may express their philosophical leanings as they see fit and applicable.

      So then, while I sometimes bristle at the occasional abrasive levied against “liberalism” I consider that the cost of free expression which is something you won’t likely find on any feminist leaning website.

      In fact, over the years I have become sufficiently disenchanted with either party and take comments made in their support with a grain of salt.

      Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

  • Steve Moxon

    Regarding my assertion that these related phenomena are the cultural product of female intra-sexual competition: this is in the light of all of the converging evidence, and in view of no other explanation being plausible. The only current alternative is the feminist attempt at an explanation that is such a hopeless fit with the facts as to be a non-starter. So far as I can see, no other suggested supposed explanations are other than merely descriptive with a tendentious twist, and in not positing causation are not hypotheses (they don’t give rise to predictions testable against an alternative). Nobody has initiated any research from a biological rather than from a feminist perspective, so there are no citations to be found. I’m in the happy position of being the first to put forward a paper. I would very much like to hear from anyone with any tenable alternative causal explanation. If I’ve missed something, then it would be nice to find out before risking making a fool of myself in harder print (as it were) than here!

    • Iron Lightning

      Great, good on you for being the first to put forward a paper. Can I perhaps have a link to the rough-draft of that paper?

      I’m sorry but I can’t come up with any tenable alternative causal explanation without first seeing the data which you are basing your interpretation on. You’ll have to show me the evidence before I can make any judgment as to the truth-value of your claims.

      Until you provide me with evidence I will continue to adhere to the Hitchens Principle: “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

      • Steve Moxon

        My paper is yet to be written, and any data I’ll be using is not required by ‘IL’ to come up with a rival hypothesis. He hasn’t got a rival hypothesis. If he had one then obviously he would be not merely alluding to it here but trumpeting it. ‘IL’s dismissal is an out-of-hand one: a usual ideological refusal to accept that there can be even in principal any arguments or any lines of evidence in support.

        • Iron Lightning

          Well, you wrote that: “Regarding my assertion that these related phenomena are the cultural product of female intra-sexual competition: this is in the light of all of the converging evidence, and in view of no other explanation being plausible.” As I do not know what evidence you are basing your interpretation on I cannot provide a different interpretation of that evidence which you refuse to share. I can’t know if your interpretation of your evidence is correct until I see your evidence.

          You also wrote: “Nobody has initiated any research from a biological rather than from a feminist perspective, so there are no citations to be found. I’m in the happy position of being the first to put forward a paper.” if that is indeed the case then there’s no evidence out there for me to use. I guess I could find some myself but I’m in no position to conduct a proper scientific investigation on such short order.

          I also never denied that there is any evidence out there that supports your conclusions. I would merely like to see what that evidence is. I can’t accept your assertions as fact until you give me some evidence for them and thus I dismiss them until you give me some.

          If I had to take a wild guess at the causes of the effects your positing then I’d say that FGM is a way for both men and women to reduce womens’ sex drives and thus increase their fidelity. I would also say that MGM does the same for men. I would say that foot binding is a way to increase the attractiveness of females by making their feet look smaller which is a trait of neoteny which is universally attractive. I would say that Islamic Dress Codes are a way to reduce the obvious sexual attractiveness of both genders (since those same codes forbid men from wearing rich-looking clothing) by way of reducing hypergamy in women and physical-attractiveness-seeking in men thus preserving fidelity and keeping greater social cohesion. Feel free to dismiss any of these guesses if I deign to provide evidence for them. Again, I don’t know the evidence that our friend Steve Moxon has which points towards his view on intra-sexual competition being the cause of all these things so I canot rightly say if his interpretation is correct. Nobody should expect to be believed on their word alone.

          Since my ideology has come in to question I believe that I should state that I am foremost an egalitarian and as such I am also an MRA and FRA. Mostly an MRA because by my reckoning men are treated much more unfairly than women are in the Western World at least. The biggest significant gripe that western women have remaining is the minor problem they are not always allowed to go shirtless while men are allowed to go shirtless. In more traditionalist countries I believe that men and women are relatively equally confined in problematic gender roles although the men have it a bit more worse off in a lot of areas.

          At any rate I would certainly love to read your paper when it gets released. We’ll have much more to talk about then.

          • Steve Moxon

            What an amazing non-logic. ‘IL’ states that because no-one has done research specifically from a certain perspective, that therefore there is no evidence at all that he would be able to find to bring to bear on the question. On the contrary, there are converging lines of evidence in the various well-known and well-documented facts of these phenomena that are nothing to do with any scientific study to investigate aetiology.
            ‘IL’ then anyway comes up with a few instances of “wild guess” which are banal non-explanation failing to venture where commonly known facts point.
            Self-evidently foot-binding originated as a means of producing an aspect of female beauty (actually movement in dance, it would seem, rather than the appearance of the feet): the question is why this spread out of the context where this made sense, and so what function did this serve? Self-evidently sexual fidelity is increased by FGM and female Islamic dress: the question is what function this would serve.
            The various well-known and well-documented facts of these phenomena show that standard feminist interpretation is in error and does not amount to an hypothesis. But an hypothesis is easily constructed fully in line with underlying biological principles.

          • Iron Lightning

            Well, if all research in this area is done by feminists then I’d hazard much of it would be giving bad interpretations if not outright fraudulent. Feminists have been known to lie, after all, that’s something we can all agree on.

            I guess that I’m wrong about there being no evidence. So, show me this evidence, please. If it’s so well-documented then it should be no trouble for you to link me to some evidence.

            Since you asked I’ll expand my guesses further. The purpose of foot-binding was to increase female beauty thus increasing the attractiveness of females to males thus allowing them to reproduce more than and with higher quality men than females without bound feet thus increasing their Darwinian fitness thus leading to the popularization of foot-binding.

            FGM and Islamic Dress increase fidelity thus increasing social cohesion (as I already wrote) thus allowing for societies with higher stability thus increasing the Darwinian fitness of everyone in the society thus leading to the popularization of FGM and Islamic Dress.

            There ya go, those are my guesses. I don’t claim that they’re accurate. I was guessing because you asked me to. Since all the evidence supports your position please, please, please link some to me.

  • Steve Moxon

    Re TheSandreGuy’s point that there are feminists on the political-Right too: too right there are. Here in the UK the mainstream centre-right political groupings are almost as thoroughgoing PC-fascist as any political-Left grouping. PC is a major political-Left backlash against ordinary people, and builds on the most deep-seated prejudices and natural elist-separatism; so PC and the political-Right are natural allies, even if the proper core value of conservatism in the sense of a balanced realism (vis-a-vis the political-Left’s radicalism) is not.

    • Ben

      You refer to clitoridectomy as “female circumcision” but you have the audacity to excoriate other people for being “PC-fascists”?! You are exercising reverse PC:

      1. Euphamistic terms to describe injustices suffered by everyone except men

      2. The most severe terms to describe injustices faced by men

      Ordinarily, I would not take issue with that, as this is a men’s rights site. However, using that type of reverse PC on the subject of FGM should be exposed for what it is.

      I can only hope that other AVfM readers agree with me and just haven’t spoken up yet. . .

      • Steve Moxon

        What utter nonsense.
        I twice refer to female genital mutilation: once as ‘FGM’ and once, for the benefit of those who might otherwise be unaware of what I was talking about, as ‘female circumcision (genital mutilation)’.
        Furthermore, when I discuss circumcision, meaning male cicrcumcision, I don’t use the term MGM, even though it is a practice destructive of highly senstitive tissue necessary to the sexual response just as ocurs in FGM.
        ‘Reverse PC-fascsism’ FFS.
        FGM takes various forms and is more usually akin to male cicrumcision than is cliterodectomy.
        Ben’s point is twaddle and surely trolling

        • Ben

          Not going to get off that easy. You are skilled at mincing words like a good academic, aren’t you? You compare FGM to fashion, which is a disgusting comparison to make, and I am drawing attention to it, not trolling. What’s next? Will you be referring the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima as a fireworks show (in case people don’t understand what an “atomic bomb” is)? And, when someone calls bullshit, will you simply call them a troll who is spouting off “utter nonsense,” on the grounds that you only called it a “firework show” because some people may not be familiar with the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima??? Would you then compare the death and destruction of the atomic bomb to pollution in Japan? Give me a fucking break! Everyone around here knows what FGM means.

          • Steve Moxon

            FGM, like foot-binding and Islamic face/body covering is clearly both comprable to and actually a fashion, notwithstanding how longstanding. Foot-binding disappeared in a generation.
            ‘Ben’ is utterly ridiculous and gratuitously malicious; clearly a troll

          • http://equalitythroughtruth.blogspot.com/ Jean Valjean

            Fashion–A popular trend, esp. in styles of dress, ornament, or behavior.

            I think this adequately describes the localized practice of FGM but would not be applicable to the limited use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

      • GE

        Ben

        FGM is a collective term for a number of procedures on the female genitals.

        Clitoridectomy is obviously the worst of these, however the most common procedure is the removal of the prepuce (clitoris hood), which is the equivalent procedure to removing the male prepuce (foreskin).

        You get read about the definitions and the stats (by type, by country) in the following UNICEF publication.
        http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/FGM-C_final_10_October.pdf

        I am personally against all types of genitals procedure for both sexes.

        It is quite obvious though, that there is manipulation in the pitch regarding FGM.

        They, including (UNICEF), do not say the FGM is overwhelming the equivalent procedure being done to males plus, to a much lesser extent, the Clitoridectomy procedure.

        Rather they take the quantity of all procedures (which is mainly prepuce removal) and imply this whole quantity is the ‘worst case’ Clitoridectomy procedure.

        I see you then using this implication when you interchange FGM and Clitoridectomy. FGM, if resolved to a particular procedure, should be interchanged with prepuce removal not Clitoridectomy

        • http://equalitythroughtruth.blogspot.com/ Jean Valjean

          Indeed GE, you describe the bait and switch tactics used by feminists for the last 40 years. Lumping statistics in together to inflate the affect.

          It’s quite dishonest.

          • Ben

            Yes, and saying that FGM is not an issue on the (likely inaccurate) grounds that FGM is performed by women and girls like getting mutilated is also a tactic used by feminists when they say that men dying on the battlefield isn’t a tragedy because men start the wars and send other men to war.

        • Steve Moxon

          Very well put, GE. The foreskin — that part of it covering the glans — is the most innervated part of the penis, and its removal seriously denudes male sexual sensitivity. This exactly corresponds to removing the clitoral hood in the female.
          Just as removal of the clitoris is a rare form of extreme ‘circumcision’ / ‘genital mutilation’ in the female, in the male there are corresponding rare dramatic forms of mutiliation of the penis shaft.
          The practices are not just far more parallel than is usually supposed, but are remarkably parallel. This further reinforces the conclusion from all of the converging lines of evidence that genital mutilation procedures function to denude sexual experience, and therefore to reduce sexual activity. As there could be no purpose served by reducing sex within the pair-bond, then it can be only in respect of extra-pair sex.

          • Steve Moxon

            ‘Ben’ just before my last post makes the blatantly dishonest or amazingly ignorant false claim that FGM is not performed by women. In ‘traditional’ societies ALL FGM is perfomed by women. It is a completely female intra-sexual phenomenon. Only where modern health service intervention is available is there the possibility that the procedure may be performed by a male, but this is anything but at any sort of male initiative: it is at the behest of women, and is to avoid the possibility of serious adverse health consequences of FGM performed outside of any medical context. That a male health professional may be involved here is simply because those trained in surgical procedures are most often male.

        • Ben

          Clitoridectomy is the worst form of FGM and to use that term as a replacement of FGM can be an act of insincerity. But how insincere is it to call FGM — which sometimes includes clitoridectomy — “fashion”? That is WILDLY more hyperbolic than the sensationalism you seem to believe I have resorted to.

          • Steve Moxon

            A completely ludicrous, dishonest ideologically hidebound assertion. There is not the remotest hyperbole in pointing out that cultural practices are fashions that as such may well disappear. This is just what happened to chinese foot-binding. It spread out in viral fashion from being initially the practice of a small number of high-status households to engulf the entire principal ethnic Chinese population bar the very lowest echelons; and then vanished inside a generation.

    • Steve Moxon

      In reply to ‘IL’ again:
      If ‘Iron Lightning’ is so sedentary as to be incapable of Googling the well-known and -documented facts about the phenomena here at issue, as pointed to herein, then it’s not up to me to waste my time arse-wiping.
      He doesn’t expand on his guesses beyond the banal, but manages nevertheless to make errors:
      * Beauty cannot have been the salient aspect of bound feet because the bound feet were never on view, so it is clearly the immobility foot-binding produced that is key.
      * Assuming a general group-cohesive effect as the main product — a cardinal sin in evolution theory, but making hardly more sense re ‘cultural evolution’ (he argues this re FGM and Islamic dress codes).

    • tamerlame

      I consider myself left wing, yet paradoxically I don’t think there is much difference between left and right anymore. It is just two different ways the state brands itself.

      I suppose I need to find a new label for myself lol

  • Steve Moxon

    FGM, like foot-binding and Islamic face/body covering is clearly both comprable to and actually a fashion, notwithstanding how longstanding. Foot-binding disappeared in a generation.
    ‘Ben’ is utterly ridiculous and gratuitously malicious; clearly a troll.

    • Ben

      Your calling me a troll is a clear appeal to authority. If you think that clitoridectomy is in any way, shape, or form comparable to some CLOTHING, then you need to have the writing room tested for lead. Sorry, Pal, calling bullshit on people is a dirty job but someone has to do it.

      • Steve Moxon

        The bullshit is all Ben’s.
        Feminists themselves draw a clear parallel between the various manifestations of what they deem to be societal control of female sexuality. Their analysis falls foul of all the evidenceso is clearly false, but there is a cogent explanation in terms of female intra-sexual competition that likewise applies in common across the various phenomena — to face/body-covering clothing as well as to genital mutilation.
        No amount of idiot malicious bullshitting from the likes of Ben can close down debate on this.

    • Ben

      By the way, Steve, that’s not a counter argument. It’s not even an argument. It is just an act of repeating the same declaration you made before in your article. You can’t compare chopping off a little girl’s clitorus against her will to some fucking CLOTHES. I would stay and argue with you but I, unlike you, am not a “socio biologist.” I am an engineer. I actually DO stuff. I have handicapped mobility equipment to design right now. You will have to find someone else to use your jawdroppingly flawed arguments on.

      • Steve Moxon

        Evidently Ben is scientifically illiterate when it comes to anything outside engineering.
        You most certainly can compare female Islamic dress codes and FGM (‘female circumcision’): they are different but related manifestations of a female group practice of facilitating the signalling of a sexual restrictiveness. The evidence clearly points to this not being any kind of control of females by males but the result of female intra-sexual competition.
        A good argument is always worth repeating.

        • Iron Lightning

          Oh, is that so? Please provide evidence that Islamic Dress Codes and FGM are a result of female intra-sexual competition then. Also provide evidence that female sexual restrictiveness is attractive to most males.

          I must admit that I find the former claim that Islamic Dress Codes are entirely controled by females to be questionable as the Religious Police that beat up and arrest any woman they find uncovered are all male as are the dictators and legislators that have criminalized being uncovered. The only way for men to have no part in this control would be if men were all the mindless thralls of women and have no agency in their actions. My word, I never thought that I’d see someone advocating male hypoagency but I guess that if feminists give women hypoagency then it was only a matter of time before someone in the MRM gave men hypoagency.

          • Steve Moxon

            I’m assuming, perhaps naively, that ‘Iron Lightning’ is not a malicious troll cohort of ‘Ben’, but evidently he doesn’t read the relevant posts and seems wilfully thick.
            As I’ve explained: (1) The ‘male control’ argument is obviously bogus because blanket denial of extra-pair sex is especially not in the interests of the males in a position to avail themselves of it: the very high-status males who would wield the ‘power’ in a supposed ‘patriarchal’ set-up. (2) What might appear ‘male control’ is nothing of the kind. With males occupying the civic end of sociality as their locus of intra-sexual competition, then they are duty bound to respond to women to help police cultural codification of female intra-sexual competition. This, far from being male control of female sexuality is an imposition on men.
            As I’ve also explained, if there is any other plausible explanation than female intra-sexual competition, it has not come to light. A long hard look by a lot of people hasn’t produced one. So it’s up to ‘IL’ to come up with an alternative — that is, a plausible alternative.
            If ‘IL’ seriously imagines that males have to find Islamic coverings ‘attractive’, then his wilful stupidity is really deep. To be charitable I can only infer absence of good faith.

          • Iron Lightning

            If asking for evidence is trolling then you had best get off my bridge because I’m a troll.

            (1) There are necessary limits on the gains a male can have through polygyny as espoused by Chapis’s description of the Leveling Hypothesis in chapter 3 of the Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Family Psychology. Putting aside that for a moment your viewpoint fails to account for the fact that lower-value men, while being unable to single-handedly defend against the intrusions of a high-value man, are capable of working in tandem to prevent such intrusions. What’s to stop a bunch of low-value men from saying to themselves: “hey, that guy is sleeping with all our wives, let’s get him!” and then lynching him.

            (2) I agree insofar that men are not fully responsible for policing women but it’s ludicrous to say that men have no say in the matter. As keeping women in adherence to Islamic Dress Codes reduces infidelity it also gives men a motive to police that. Since the dress code also has some benefits for women (e.g. their man won’t run off for the hot piece of ass down the street if she’s covered head-to-toe) I would expect that they also are interested in policing that. So yes, it’s not male control; it’s social control.

            I’ve produced some tentative alternative explanations above as has our lovely friend Typhonblue.

            Still, even if there were no other explanations that does not mean that yours is automatically correct. It used to be the case that the only explanation for the diversity of life was that it was custom created at once by a supernatural being but that wasn’t true. Now we know that it was due to the process of evolution. The way we figured this out was through the accumulation of evidence which I will need to see for your viewpoint before I can know whether it is true or not.

            I didn’t say that Islamic Coverings needed to be attractive to males but that the sexual restrictiveness which they represented would be attractive to males. Since you seem to have misunderstood what I meant by attractive I will say that I used it here to mean that sexually restrictive women are better at attracting a male than sexually promiscuous women. Come to think of it. I think that you’re right and the fidelity promised be sexual restrictiveness can be attractive to males in certain contexts. Heh, that will teach me to post at 5:00 in the morning.

  • Tawil

    The original story of Cinderella came from China into Europe. It was about small feet. And Cinderella is the poor victim maid girl (of women!!) who ends up being a princess through her attention-seeking feet.

    Apparently the original version of the story had the ugly sistas trying on the glass slippers and cutting thier feet badly as they tried to squeeze into them.

    The story was about women’s relationship with each other through foot-binding competition, and the booty the winner could harvest.

  • Codebuster

    >”I must admit that I find the former claim that Islamic Dress Codes are entirely controled by females to be questionable as the Religious Police that beat up and arrest any woman they find uncovered are all male as are the dictators and legislators that have criminalized being uncovered.

    It seems that many individiduals continue to default to the pig-ignorant pressumption that “The Patriarchy” is responsible for denying women their rights. This is complete nonsense, and it demonstrates a failure to understand how cultures operate. “The Patriarchy” never emerges from a vacuum. There is always a matriarchal dimension. The police, dictators and legislators are married to women who like things the way that they are and who enjoy the fruits of the success that is contingent on their providers providing more of the same. Furthermore, women are usually the primary nurturers of the children that they teach about the things that matter. Little boys grow up knowing what is expected of them, and they first learn this from Mom.

    >”Paul, what does female genital mutilation have to do with men’s rights? Absolutely nothing.

    What a stupid, ridiculous comment. FGM has everything to do with men’s rights because it has everything to do with what’s broken about our mainstream paradigm and our understanding of the way that the world works. Women oppress women all the time. Consider the topic, for example, of relational aggression. From the documents that I’ve come across in my research, FGM has been exclusively women doing it to girls and women – for example. FGM is a rite of passage for young girls.

    How women oppress women is hugely relevant to men’s rights, because it identifies who the enemy is, and it’s not “The Patriarchy”. On this topic of women oppressing women, consider Phyllis Chesler’s book woman’s inhumanity to women.

    • Iron Lightning

      “It seems that many individiduals continue to default to the pig-ignorant pressumption that “The Patriarchy” is responsible for denying women their rights. This is complete nonsense, and it demonstrates a failure to understand how cultures operate.”

      I agree, I’m sorry if I came off wrong. What I meant was that it wasn’t completely women that are responsible for denying women their rights as Steve Moxon appears to think. I meant that it is both men and women who are responsible. So we agree completely.

      While I’m at it, insofar as your response to Ben goes I also agree. That was a rather silly comment but that’s what happens when you let your emotions get the best of you.

      • Steve Moxon

        Another non-sequiteur by ‘IL’. I have said nothing at all about women’s “rights”. I’ve never made any statement — here or anywhere else — about who or which sex (or both sexes) may or may not be responsible for “denying women their rights”.
        Apology required from ‘Iron Lightning’ for obvious serious misrepresentation.

        Which rights, and in what sense ‘rights’?

        • Iron Lightning

          I was using rights in the same sense that Codebuster was using. That is: the right of women to go outside without covering themselves up in Islamic Dress. More broadly that’s the right of bodily autonomy. If you don’t like the word “right” then call what I was referring to the practice of women covering themselves in the Islamic Fashion in Muslim countries or else face arrest.

          I did not mean to misrepresent you. I thought that you would understand what I meant by rights in the context of that last conversation. Sorry about that.

    • Ben

      I admit that the comment was rude and silly and immature but only because I asked Paul a question and the immediately answered it. Yeah… That was pretty screwed up on my part. But I don’t think it was a stupid question. FGM a women’s rights issue. To ask what FGM has to do with men’s rights is a reasonable thing to ask, in my opinion. But, I have already beat that topic to death.

  • Steve Moxon

    In response to ‘IL’ where he makes points numbered (1) and (2).
    Re his point (2), ‘IL’ still has not taken on board that the very males most ‘in control’ — high mate-value (high status) men — are the very ones in a position to avail themselves of extra-pair sex; since it would make no sense for a female to have extra-pair sex unless that partner was of a higher mate-value than her pair-bonded partner. [Sexual variety cannot work for the female given that she is highly constrained reproductively in a single conception-gestation-lactation cycle at a time.]
    ‘IL’ thinks in usual but surely mistaken terms of ‘control’ of women — even if he does concede this is by women as well as by men — when instead it is far more plausible that it is a female intra-sexually competitive and in-grouping phenomenon of signalling by women to prospective male pair-bond partners of their likely fidelity.
    [This is a game of the female advertising: "Hey! I need a 'good genes' guy to put off all those losers from bothering me; and look how I'm not likely to be too much of a pain for you to 'mate-guard'." To this, a guy replies: "Hey! I know I'm not quite God's gift, but if you would put up with a tad less in the 'good genes' stakes, then I'll do all your 'piss-off you loser!' routine for you."]
    ‘IL’s point (1) reveals a profound non-understanding of social structure and dynamics, and the very basis of sociality in differential reproductive-(self-)suppression. This is what comes of a mindset stuck in hopelessly bogus notions of ‘power’ dreamed up by sociologists.
    Still, to stick within conventional wrong-headed notions of ‘power’: wouldn’t it be more likely that the collective of high-status males and their agents would be more effective bullies than would a bunch of ‘nobodies’? Aside from the deep-seated evolved implicit psychological checks on the behaviour of low-rankers, wouldn’t the ‘guys on top’ have well stitched things up in terms of legal codes, local ritual practice, etc?
    As for ‘IL’s charge that I somehow believe my position to be “atutomatically correct”: that is a caricature of my point that no other plausible account has come to light, despite plenty of people looking. I’ve asked for cogent challenges and none has been forthcoming. So my account appears to be accurate by default, but given that I might well have missed something, then that is hardly to deny that a better — more refined or even a contradicting — account may be available.

  • Steve Moxon

    To reiterate — given broken ‘reply’ links further up the thread:
    If ‘Iron Lightning’ is so sedentary as to be incapable of even merely Googling the well-known and -documented facts about FGM/Islamic coverings/foot-binding, as pointed to herein; then it’s not up to me to waste my time arse-wiping.
    As Paul @ AVFM points out, it was not appropriate to put citations within the text of a free-flowing opinion piece; that is for the paper.
    Debate and science proceed not by appealing to some almost-bound-to-be out-of-date authority by someone putting forward an hypothesis and then someone else providing counter hypothesis, whereby the two can be tested to determine between them. ‘IL’ does not put forward a counter-hypothesis, and mine is not a counter to anything coherent that could be a hypothesis. ‘IL’ just posits the usual banal non-explanation; and even here he makes big errors.

    • Iron Lightning

      There are no broken reply links here. They’re coded to stop after a number of responses so that text doesn’t get horizontally squeezed too much and flood the page. That’s why I replied to myself to continue the thread.

      I did exceed my role as a critic and did a search for evidence to support your claims which I took issue with. Namely, that females are allowed to freely have extra-pair sex with any higher value male with no social punishment should they get caught and that FGM is approved of by the majority of women and disapproved of by the majority of men in the countries which practice FGM. I’m sorry, I couldn’t find anything on those claims in particular. I guess you’re right and my Google search skills are weak. Please help me by providing links to that specific evidence which I have requested above.

      Maybe you’ll accuse me of arguing in bad faith. I assure you that I am not doing so. However, you can prove that my position is wrong very easily by providing evidence as is your responsibility under the philosophical burden of proof as defined in the wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof . If you rely on your opponent to do your research for you then you end up with problems like this.

      It’s very easy for you to come up with some proof so please do it. If it’s so well-known and well-documented then presenting some evidence should be absolutely trivial. It would take much less work for you to silence me with your obvious facts than it would for you to continue to argue your opinions with me. So, please, I beg of you, sir, show me the evidence.

      • Steve Moxon

        Ah, here arrives the inevitable straw man: it always does.
        To repeat yet again: there is no difficulty Googling to find the well-documented facts about FGM, Chinese foot-binding, and Islamic face/body coverings; ditto the ubiquity of high rates of extra-pair sex and conception by pair-bonded females across species, humans included; showing clearly that pair-bonding does not succeed in preventing extra-pair sex when this is chosen by the female partner; ditto that social opprobrium for extra-pair sex traditionally was heaped not on the female perpetrator but on the male victim in ‘Skimmington’ (or otherwise named) ritual; the facts about the ubiquity of the mistress in Victorian times, and what we all know of contemporary attitudes.
        I’m not a dogsbody for an otherwise lazy troll on the comments section of an internet site.
        The straw man arrives in the ridiculous misrepresentation that supposedly there was any claim that “females are allowed to freely have extra-pair sex with any higher value male with no social punishment should they get caught”, when it’s been clearly pointed out — blindingly obvious though it is anyway — that there will always be the husband and his relatives to contend with. Nobody claims that there was never any social punishment whatsoever for any female engaging in extra-pair sex. As I previously remarked, what is surprising is that this notwithstanding, formal social punishment traditionally was directed not at the ‘cheating’ female but at the cuckolded male. Then there is the pressure on the male extra-pair sex partner, who as ever was obliged to provide support in the event of conception, and to marry the female if she was not already so.
        A high-status extra-pair sex partner is in a good position to look after the female well, offsetting the loss of a pair-bond partner and any reputation for sexual impropriety.
        ‘IL’ also still persists in his stubborn refusal to acknowledge the process of hypothesis testing, requiring as it does a counter hypothesis.

        • Iron Lightning

          Well, my friend, it seems that you and I just have a different understanding of how debate works. I take the view that it is comprised of an asserter and a dissenter wherein the dissenter criticizes the asserter’s argument to see if it can withstand scrutiny. You take the view that it is comprised of one hypothesis against another wherein both sides are equally responsible for finding evidence. It is this impasse which has caused us to so futilely bash against each other with no one getting anywhere.

          Therefore I concede to you for now and, while I still haven’t seen good evidence from you, I do not wish to argue with you further. Call me a troll if you like and declare victory if you want. I’m weary, I just got out of a days-long argument with a eugenics supporter and I don’t wish to argue anymore.

          I love you too much to continue. Goodbye, my friend, I can’t wait to see your paper. :)

          • Steve Moxon

            I will fully reference and write a paper in my own good time and not rehearse it piecemeal at the behest of a poster on the comments section of an internet site, who refuses to do simple Googling to check anything either re the hypothesis or any counter hypothesis (and refuses to formulate any counter hypothesis); and insists that he is not going to attempt to provide any evidence in support of any contra position while at the same time claiming that there is an onus on me to provide full evidence in support of the hypothesis. Unsurprisingly, I’m not going to play that game.

  • xenon250

    Would completely agree with MrShadowfax42 that we need to speak out and condemn ALL needless oppression and suffering (whether it’s caused by outdated religious practices & traditions in the East, or by anti-male discriminatory government legislation here in the West). To anyone who would wish to inflict such things on other people for no good reason, well they can just f*ck off to hell as far as I’m concerned. For me, it’s really that simple.

  • Maleman

    Il said “It is this impasse which has caused us to so futilely bash against each other with no one getting anywhere”. But I couldn’t disagree more; it was only IL who got nowhere. Moxon has put up and defended a convincing hypothesis (his word which suggests he is only presenting a hypothesis at this stage).

    Steve Moxon seems to have gone to great lengths to explain everything he has said as best he can and he has also said plainly that he has no proof. And he is still getting that old chestnut of “prove it” pejoratively thrown at him. But let me see if I have got the right impression. This is pioneering stuff and his article above is just a few paragraphs on the subject.

    He has however kept an open mind and asked for all thoughts and theories before publishing (seems prudent) and I for one will be keen to read his paper (I presume in NMS journal). I am sure it will be just as interesting as his last paper was. His book is comprehensive (the male gene filter idea is fascinating) so I know he has given this subject an enormous amount of thought over the ten years it took to write. It’s controversial but not pop psychology/sociology imho. So I am keen to see where this goes. So far IL has only been able to say “you can’t say that!!!” but unable to supply an alternative argument about why you can’t say that and then insists on proof over and over again, and the straw man is blatant, (thank you Nathanson and Young for teaching me all about ideology).

    But no matter how implausible something may seem it can’t be simply summarily dismissed. That’s ideology not science, even if as IL claims, the onus is on him, but much philosophical theory cannot be empirically tested anyway. An article here is not publishing in a peer reviewed Journal. In this forum it only needs to pass the ‘ring true’ test. So after he has published I suggest naysayers present alternative papers. If Il is able to discredit the paper, Moxon will be academically destroyed. This subject is something so important that it really should be argued in the journals.

    So at the moment, even though it’s highly controversial the only opinion that can be formed is one of “OK well it seems a long shot but it just might be true, however I would like to see evidence, maybe we should look into it”. And that seems reasonable doesn’t it? I think that is all Steve Moxon is asking. (sorry Steve, not wanting to speak for you, it’s just the impression I got).

    Warren Farrell also had a theory on Islamic face and body coverings. For those who aren’t familiar and I would be surprised if there are any of you……….hiding beauty encourages men to marry who otherwise couldn’t afford it, as that is the only time a man can ‘see’ a woman. This system also manages to marry off the less attractive, also to men who can’t afford it and so society continues to procreate when it otherwise might decline.

    The men are coerced to essentially sign up for a lifetime of hardship in return not just for sex but even just to look at a woman’s face. However there are many men who don’t have enough money to pay for a wife and so resign themselves to a lifetime of loneliness, thus some women are left over so they allow the rich ones to have multiple wives so almost all fertile females are married off. (And thus there are more children to the alpha males).

    No one is saying it’s a good system just the one that developed to avoid dying out…… Or something along those lines, correct me please as it has been a long time since I read that and it may have been updated since then. He doesn’t say whether it’s male of female driven. And Farrell is on the advisory board of NMS Journal so it will be interesting to see what develops. As for my own opinion, well I’m just keeping an open mind. However I myself think that Steve Moxon might possibly turn out to be the Galileo Galilei of modern social science.

    But it may be some time before he is proven right or wrong and history is littered with people either recognized or trashed centuries later. Good luck Steve.

    • Steve Moxon

      Well, I’m blushing and speechless, Maleman!
      I must confess I’ve not read Warren’s position on this topic. Instead of a biological perspective Warren has always stayed with the ‘standard social science model’, which means he’s on a shared platform with his ‘Patriarchy’ [sic] theory foes, enabling him to combat them effectively in speaking a similar language, as it were. At the same time, though, this leads to understanding that is more descriptive than properly explanatory. So with great respect to the hugely important work Warren most clearly has done — ‘The Myth of Male Power’ remains the founding and seminal book re what the likes of AVFM is about — I would say he’s necessarily off-target here through looking at the cultural surface rather than the biological depth.

      • Peter Wright (Tawil)

        I think its disparaging to state that Farrell is looking at the cultural surface. He’s looking at somewhat deeper cultural realities, via sociological analysis, that superficial sociological analyses do not readily admit.

        Perhaps you want to paint his area of study as surface compared to yours? Have you considered that this might be comparing the relative depth of analysis from two very different disciplines? I find this kind of transparent self promotion offputting to put it mildly.

        Having read your book I find your analysis as much “surface” within your own genre as Farrell’s was within his, though I did appreciate that light analysis by you. I would characterise both yours and Farrell’s writings as mid-range between surface and depth. Certainly not of the depth of independent and rigorous clinical research.

        • Steve Moxon

          Well, that’s pretty perverse.
          Warren certainly looks at the depths of culture and not in the surface way that most sociologists do, but any examination of culture when it is looked at as simply culture and not as part of biology is ultimately a surface view.
          As I have pointed out at length in a published paper, culture is not in any way separate from biology, being the manifestation of evolved psychology and functioning to feed back to fine-tune and reinforce the underlying biology. Therefore, to examine culture without a good understanding of biological underpinnings is doomed to failure — and worse, given the instrumental self-deceptions and near total self-ignorance built into brain function. You end up with a circular tautology where ideological premise is held to be proven by findings that are not interpretable in any way other than in terms of the ideological premise. That, essentially, is what much sociology is about.
          It would be hard for me to be more the opposite of “disparaging” in my comments about Warren: I took particular pains to praise his work, and that is genuine sentiment. I don’t think I would be here today doing what I do if I hadn’t read ‘The Myth of Male Power’.
          But it would do the book and Warren’s theorising no justice simply to idolise.
          I’d be interested to know what was supposedly shallow within my “genre” [sic].

  • Bharat Mahan

    “This is how face-body coverings, foot-binding and FGM work. They are widespread fashions among women that aside from their particular cultural manifestation are essentially a unitary biological phenomenon. As with all fashions, they are not imposed but readily adopted as women wish to join the more advantageous in-group and to dissociate themselves from the relative under-dog out-group.

    It requires no imposition from without.”

    In the cases of FGM and foot binding, the impositions were/are entirely from without. From ADULTS forced upon infants, toddlers and children.

    Now, as far as niqab, that too is enforced from without;
    the official government of Saudi Arabia, the unofficial Taliban government of Afghanistan, and the government of Iran (though not niqab in that case but chador).

    When those women leave those countries, that niqab and chador comes off.

    The only cases where this is not the case is in UK and other Western countries whereby Muslims who are not Saudi, Afghani nor Irani become influenced by Saudi based and funded Wahhabi Islam and reject not only Western dress but their own sub-cultural dress (such as salwar kameez or saris in the case of South Asian descended Muslims) in favor of the National Dress of Saudi Arabia.

    Why would they do so when modest and Quranic compliant clothing can be found easily in the UK and other Western countries?

    Simply put: its a POLITICAL STATEMENT.

    I see this “Saudi-ization” going on amongst the Muslims in my own country who up until recently were satisfied wearing our own indigenous clothing.

    • Bharat Mahan

      PS: the unhealthy legacy of foot binding not only lives on, but is considered “sexy” in the West. Your fashion of “high heels” was invented to mimic the deformity of bound and abused feet.

      Read about it and see the photographic evidence for yourselves here;

      http://www.danielvitalis.com/tag/foot-binding-tradition/

    • Steve Moxon

      No. The imposition on infants and youngsters is from within the female domain within the traditional culture. That is the point. It does not come from outside the female domain within traditional culture except insofar as men in their civic roles are obliged to assist women in maintaining the ubiquity of the particular practice.
      It is a banal and silly point that infants and young girls do not perform any of these practices upon themselves. And that women’s attitudes change when they move to a very different social milieu hardly would be unexpected — though note that many women who have moved to the West persist in the particular practice, and that this often passes down through three or more generations. Likewise, women who stay in countries where the tradition originated and persists, may drop the particular practive under the impact of education. Again, just what would be expected.

      • Bharat Mahan

        Steve, I take it you have no direct experience living in those cultures? I do. And, like sex selective abortions and female feoticide in India, it is a joint family decision, not solely made by the females in the family.

        The adult men and women work together to perpetuate these atrocities on female infants, toddlers and girls.

        I am not giving the adult women a free pass by any means, nor am I absolving their menfolk, for I know how traditional extended family cultures work. The leaders of the families, both the matriarchs and patriarchs, are in it together.

        • Steve Moxon

          Hi Bharat
          Decisions re abortion hardly are not going to be by both parties and instead just by the female party, so that’s not a good comparison.
          To an extent anything involving a family member is within the ambit of both partners, and surely will be discused by them; but there is abundant evidence that what I have addressed together as female intra-sexual phenomena essentially are very much so.

          • Bharat Mahan

            “Decisions re abortion hardly are not going to be by both parties and instead just by the female party, so that’s not a good comparison.”

            You are 100% absolutely wrong about this. This is the problem with Western people projecting their own cultural values onto the rest of the world which they have no experience of.

            In India a wife is not an individual, nor is she part of a couple. She is a cog in the wheel of her in-laws joint family home (do you even know what a “joint family” is?), where she lives as the very bottom rung of the family heirarchal ladder. She does not make any decisions by herself but decision are made FOR her by her elder in-laws. Documentaries have been made about sex selective abortion in India, the hows and whys, for people like you. I suggest you watch them. I don’t need to since I am living and breathing in this culture daily.

            Its best you stick to what you know – your own culture.

  • Steve Moxon

    Here’s something tasty re my hypothesis …..
    Key findings from across historical investigations of face/body covering (veiling):
    1. Veiling pre-dated Islam by millennia.
    2. As with foot-binding, it originated in and was restricted to the noble social strata.
    2. Unmarried noble females (daughters) were veiled as well as noblemen’s wives.
    3. NON-NOBLE FEMALES WERE PROHIBITED FROM AND PUNISHED FOR VEILING.
    These findings show that female intra-sexual competition is the basis of veiling.
    That there was such a strong desire by non-noble women to veil that it had to be dissuaded by punishment as well as by proscription reveals that male imposition hardly could have been the basis of veiling.

    • Bharat Mahan

      “These findings show that female intra-sexual competition is the basis of veiling.”

      Not today’s veiling. The men made it an actual LAW in Saudi Arabia. The disobedience of which is punishable by law.

      Moreover, even foreign women who travel through or work in Saudi must completely cover their hair or face legal punishment.

      In Iran the men have made a law that women must wear chador. Prior to this Iranians were not veiling/chadoring.

      In Afghanistan the rogue para-militia made it tribal and village law that women had to cover their faces. Prior to this Afghanis were not veiling/niqabing.

      If Muslim women are so into this “intra-sexual-the-most-veiled-wins-competition” TODAY, then why the need for laws?

      • Steve Moxon

        ‘Today’ is irrelevant compared to what pertained nearer the origin of the practice in revealing original function.
        The practices were pre-existing to Islam and latterly adopted by Islam, and therefore attitudes to veiling within Islam are surely to do with Islam.
        What functions may have overlaid the original function of the practice do not tell us about the original function and are a distraction from it.

  • Steve Moxon

    Bharat completely mis-reads, in his previous comment, my point re abortion.
    I wrote:
    “Decisions re abortion hardly are not going to be by both parties and instead just by the female party.”
    This is a statement that decisions re abortion are a family matter and not for the female alone. Just as he agrees.
    So, no, it’s not a case of me having to stick to a culture I he wrongly supposes I don’t know; it’s instead the case that Bharat should not project his bogus assumption on to me of Western non-understanding of other cultures.
    I guess it may be a language translation issue, though.

  • Izumi

    I’m a bit confused about the way you write FGM and face-body covering. You equate both with ‘fashion’ and wrote that it is not imposed but readily accepted among women. By ‘accepted’, you assume that the women and girls have choices in that area. Correct me if I’m wrong at interpreting your writing, but did you even know that many of the mutilated girls are infants who are yet have the ability to think let alone approve the practice to be accepted by their community? I think you limit your definition of FGM only by the practitioner and completely exclude the mutilated girls. If by fashion you mean the one of the men and women in the society that practices FGM, that is perhaps true. But it’s certainly *not* the fashion of the infants as they did not chose to be mutilated. Also, not all of the woman agrees with the mutilation for the sake of strengthen the religious/culture bonds, the practitioners (usually woman) often did that for monetary gains as many jobs are still deemed ‘improper’ for women. The males’ preference on mutilated girls make things worse, whether its the fat-bearded mullahs (Islamic clerics) who issued fatwa that advocates FGM or just plain bachelor who blindly follows the FGM myth.

    The same goes with face and body coverings, to which we refer as hijab, be it simple headscarf, burqa or niqab. It is true that both muslim and muslimah (muslim woman) forces the idea to every muslimah, but it is erroneous to believe that men are totally innocent or have only a little influence in it. Guess who are more eager to preach and threat women with hellfire to wear hijab? The fat-bearded mullahs. The one who are more prone to do physical-violence, like beating, to women whom they perceive not following this dress-code in strict sharia-based country are often the male family member. Pairing this with a culture that sees anger and violence as one of the highest virtue for men just makes things worse. Along with that, perhaps you’ve heard of the burqa for baby girls. Choices for the muslimahs? Very few, if any.

    I’m not shifting the entire blame to the men, i wanted to point out that both sexes in the community have their role in perpetuating these practices. But in a male-oriented religion like this, it is almost always the men in power who are louder when screaming rules regulating women, often to the point denying them many basic civil rights. Simply put, choices are too few for women to be able to label it ‘fashion’, thanks to mullahs and their muslimahs supporters who are indeed imposing the practices.

    Hopefully you’re not trying to dismiss the fact that there *are* imposition of these practices, and both men *and* women are responsible for the perpetuation of it. And hopefully you’re not assuming that every woman around the world have the same civil-rights like in the western countries, particularly USA.

    • Steve Moxon

      I’ve been perfectly clear: that the phenomena are at root female intra-sexual and not imposed on females by males. The converging lines of evidence support this, and show decisively that the standard patriarchal [sic] therory is false. I could have gone further and extended the argument to encompass ‘homour’ crime and witch-hunting.
      That males are obliged to support female intra-sexual machinations though their inhabiting the civic end of sociality in no way makes men to blame.
      The roots are now shrouded in thousands of years of cultural superstructure, so that everybody has lost sight of why all of these phenomena arose, so it’s pointless to start trying to lay blame on such as Islamic clergy. Islamic dress codes pre-date the origin of Islam by thousands of years.

      • Spider

        I understand the rejection of the “men act, women are acted upon” narrative for all of human history – as half of the population, women have contributed to the cultural norms that negatively affect all genders. I agree that the patriarchy theory is dis-empowering and unhelpful, but trying to play a “gender blame game” at all is unproductive. The broken cultural systems we have are the fault of men and women – this isn’t an either or situation. I found this post somewhat frustrating in that it seemed to imply women were entirely responsible for the creation of gender roles damaging to men and women. I would love to see the converging lines of evidence you mentioned, to gain a fuller understanding of the subject.

        • Steve Moxon

          REPLY TO ‘SPIDER’
          It’s nothing to do with any ‘blame game’ but looking at the scientific reality of social structure and dynamics and how the sexes are separated and interact, to then accurately locate the phenomenon as being female intra-sexual, and not some mytho-political cross-sex ‘power’ play.
          That a phenomenon is female intra-sexual does not mean that women are to blame; any more than that dominance interaction to construct a male dominance hierarchy is the fault of men.
          Male dominance hierarchies go back in evolutionary time to very ‘primitive’ species, so it is absurd to blame men, as if they somehow magicked-up the phenomenon in human history. Likewise it is absurd to blame women for female intra-sexual phenomena.
          There is no way that I’m going to back off investigating all this because to some it seems like a ‘blame’ game: it is up to those who cannot distinguish evolution from history to wise up.

          • Spider

            Thank you for that clarification! Characterizing it as the exploration of evolutionary and biological phenomena makes your investigative goals much clearer. Again, could you point me towards some of the data you’ve collected or a paper about the “converging lines of evidence” you’ve mentioned? I want to learn more.

  • Steve Moxon

    REPLY TO SPIDER
    I’ll be writing a fully referenced paper. Nobody’s published a paper on this stuff, so that’s something I can usefully do. [I'm working on several papers in parallel, so I can't give a good estimate when it will be out -- and it depends on which journal takes it.]

    • Spider

      Well, let me know as soon as you’ve got it written/published – I’d love to read it!