A former president and major journalist claim that religion is oppressive to women and unless women are allowed to break into the remaining all-male clergy, the major organized religions will continue not just to oppress women religiously, but to indirectly cause the full-scale oppression of women in all areas of life. Any act of foul play by a man against a woman – and the implication is that there are many such acts of foul play – reflects this injustice. 

Now let’s examine the facts. Ever since the apostles abandoned their fishing nets by the Galilee, millions of men have followed in their footsteps, taking vows of relative poverty and often celibacy, consigning themselves to austerity and reproductive oblivion, and performing spiritual and material services, at all hours of the day, for their followers, at least half of whom have been women.

A small percentage of these men acquired power and tasted luxury. Popes and bishops fathered children and drank from vessels of gold, with the full imperial regalia provided by an established church. Anglican ministers lived in genteel and undemanding circumstances, able to pursue fossil collecting and literary studies. Televangelists became rich celebrities and famous theologians altered the intellectual landscape. But, by any measure, these men represent a minute fraction of the whole. The life of the average Christian cleric is not taken up by most Christian men for good reason. It is too hard. 

Now how is it possible to conclude that men have, out of animus, excluded women from this life, forcing them instead to taste the relative freedom of being mothers or daughters who were cared for by their fathers? It is only possible if one ignores the truth. Like so much of the prevailing opinion regarding male power, it is a myth. The exact opposite is true. Men have been the play things of anti-male prejudice, the widespread expectation that they must assume tasks women do not want or cannot perform and that they must give way to cultural prerogatives whatever they may be. Not only must they assume these tasks, they must perform them well, sometimes spectacularly well.

Thus, when female prerogative changes and women (through the influence of both other women and men) suddenly decide they want to be ministers and priests, men must give up whatever comfort they may have taken in belonging to an all-male profession and turn the keys over. In previous times they would have been oppressors if they weren’t priests, now they are oppressors if they are.

What gives? How is it possible that the idea of a vast male conspiracy against women has gained such widespread acceptance?

According to Steve Moxon, author of The Woman Racket, the answer can be found not in cultural theory or historical analysis, but in the science of male and female. Moxon is one of the best popularizers of the latest findings in evolutionary psychology. He makes a persuasive argument that anti-male prejudice is embedded in human nature.

Men and women are… unequal, but it is not women at all, but men—not all men, but the majority—who make up the biggest disadvantaged sub-group in every society.Women by contrast are universally and perennially privileged: over-privileged. This unconditional favour has no counterpart for men, who have to meet certain criteria even to be afforded the most basic consideration.

This conclusion is not simply an attack on feminism, a form of turning the tables on a new oppressor, but a conclusion heavily supported by genetics and behavioral science. The purpose is not to glorify men at the expense of women. Men have, just as much as women, participated in this enforcing of anti-male bias.  Moxon writes:

The general consensus about human social behaviour—at least within the chattering classes—is the most plainly false in history. In no other culture—and at no other point in the history of our own culture—have people got things so spectacularly wrong.

Females are always and everywhere the “limiting factor” in reproduction and males are the “genetic filter.” Put simply, this means genetic variation is more pronounced in men and human behavior has developed in such a way to magnify these variations. Males are constantly engaged in forms of competition, most of the time unconsciously, to prove their genetic worth. Both men and women participate in the process of choosing the most worthy males. According to Moxon:

If males can be driven to behave in  ways that expose just how well-functioning or not are their genes, then natural selection will act more on males than on females, even though the sexes are equally likely to have some of the genes that the lineage needs to get shot of.[sic]

Because society is so attuned to facilitating these biological realities, there is an in-built focus on high-status men. Males who are least fit are marginalized; their sexual drive is even naturally suppressed over time. This focus on high-status men explains much of the male conspiracy theory. Feminists fix their attention only on the men at the top and ignore the vast majority. In short, they complain about the wealthy popes and famous theologians, not about the average priest.

Why would it be in the interest of women to be priests and popes now? Although Moxon does not specifically address this issue, it seems society has evolved a new mechanism for putting women close to high-status men: the entry of women into previously all-male professions. In order to be successful, this drive must be expressed in all fields, even religion, where men and women are not likely to find prospective mates.

It is natural that this drive come cloaked in the rhetoric of fighting male privilege.  People honestly and genuinely believe this rhetoric. That’s because there is a natural tendency to overlook the powerlessness of most men. From The Woman Racket:

Evolutionary science would predict that, lurking beneath the veneer of our supposedly equitable and egalitarian modern societies, there must be profound prejudice
against the male sex: by men and women alike. In fact it’s startlingly obvious on the surface once you know where to look, as I will be demonstrating. It’s apparent in every scenario where men and women come up against each other, so to speak. The way that prejudice against men is evident throws light on our social psychology, that has built on the essential difference between the sexes, and to make matters ever worse for the male sex. This won’t essentially change, but even though we can’t ameliorate it in any essential way, we can do so in some respects. We can make ourselves aware  that we are playing a game that artificially stretches out the men we know in our communities so that most falsely appear in some respects as losers, nitwits, weaklings, or devils beyond the pale.

                                                                                 —- Comments —–

Hannon writes:

Here is a book, Sexual Strategies: How Females Choose Their Mates, by Mary Batten, that I have recommended since reading it when it came out in 1992. On a quick re-read I see that her summary dwells on the modern oppression of women; the book may be one of those that is well worth reading if the conclusions are dismissed. Most of the book is fact-filled and fascinating as she elaborates the female role in mating– arguably the most powerful position, that of choosing a mate– and the role of males, which is to compete (with each other) for that favor.

Batten’s range of topics is engaging and diverse. It was in reading this book years ago that I gained an understanding, in biological terms, that the reproductive prerogative of females– physical and resource security for her benefit and that of her offspring up to a certain age– has been a dominant force since ancient times. For males, the imperative is to enable as many genetic combinations with multiple females as his resourcefulness will allow. Are these approaches perfectly complimentary?

We continue to struggle with overlaying cultural mores onto this basic biological heritage. We cannot direct or “engineer” all cultural outcomes and even less so our constitutive reproductive biology. But these things are subject to our free will and obedience to a higher purpose. The obsession over the subjugation or emancipation of one or the other sexes seems to yearningly hark back to the days of fertility rituals (cf. your recent post).

Laura writes:

It appears that both sexes are in subjugation to biological forces to a degree. We can understand these forces and try to counteract them when they are not in our real interests. In other words, we are not just puppets of evolution at all. Our culture denies these biological realities and makes any natural tendency toward anti-male prejudice much more destructive than it need be. In fact, it pretends that the biological realities are totally opposite than they are, that men have the upper hand in all areas of life. Very powerful men do have the upper hand in most areas of life, but they are in the minority.  

Laura adds:

It’s important to stand at a remove from these evolutionary analyses of male and female behavior. Adaptation to environment over time may have helped shape the behavior of men and women, but it can never be proven. Evolution is not the cause of morality, a point where I disagree with Moxon.  

Please follow and like us: