This Man-Woman Thing is Simpler Than We Think

Is being a "kept" woman better than not being kept by anyone?

The Wall Street Journal recently published, "Has the Sexual Revolution Been Good for Women?" which argues that it hasn't.

Why do websites run by and for women focus so much on men who won't grow up, and ooze such despair about relations between the sexes?  [emphasis added]

Why do so many accomplished women simply give up these days and decide to have children on their own, sometimes using anonymous sperm donors, thus creating the world's first purposely fatherless children? What of the fact, widely reported earlier this week, that 26% of American women are on some kind of mental-health medication for anxiety and depression and related problems?

The reason men won't grow up is simple to understand if you think about how natural selection chose the men and women who were able to pass on their genes.

Until the industrial revolution brought washing machines, tractors, and other labor-saving devices, keeping a home was an immense amount of work.  There was wash day when the woman washed, wrung, and dried the family's clothes by hand.  There was baking day when she hand-kneaded a week's worth of bread.  With all that work, women didn't have the energy or the strength for the grinding work of plowing, planting, and reaping the farm.  The only way a woman could raise children to pass on her genes was by finding a man who'd feed her and hope that all the work he had to do didn't kill him before her children were grown.

Ask this woman
if she needs a man
like a fish needs a bicycle.

"Be Kept!"

Natural selection favored women who cared about relationships because she and her children were likely to starve if her relationship with her provider broke down.  The wealthier the man she could attract, the more children she could raise.  A woman's mantra for passing on DNA was, "Be kept!  Find someone, anyone, to feed me and my children!"

Men have two reproductive strategies, not just one: "love 'em and keep 'em" or "love 'em and leave 'em."

"Love 'em and leave 'em" works best for a man who can pull it off as this man who fathered 82 children.  As leader of the pack, Genghis Khan got first pick of the women whenever his Mongol hordes won a battle.  He'd sample 3 or 4 women per day, then move on.  Analysis of DNA patterns spread across Asia suggest that he has 16 million living descendants.

Few men have Mr. Khan's persuasive way with the ladies, so they settle for "love 'em and keep 'em."  That can bring reproductive success, even though the BBC reports that a man with 86 wives and 170 children admits that keeping that many women can be a bit much.

Love 'em and Keep 'em

Women and children are so expensive that most men can afford one wife at most.  When a man's taking care of a woman, natural selection forces him to be insanely jealous and possessive.  A man who didn't keep other men away from his woman raised other men's children and was bred out of the gene pool.  Natural selection ensured that men who passed on their genes were quite possessive.

Supporting a wife is so much effort that most men would rather not work that hard.  In order to persuade men to grow up and get jobs, women used to refuse to have sex without marriage and they wouldn't marry unless he had a job.  Persuading a man to support her meant that she'd have to depend on him, so he had to be able to be depended on.

Modern women would rather be independent so they get jobs of their own.  This means that she has no need to depend on a man, so she doesn't have to require dependability of a male partner and can just life with whomever she chooses.  Fro a man's point of view, having a woman move in "with benefits" means she pays "her share" of the rent.  He can have sex without growing up, so why grow up?

When a woman says she's looking for a long-term relationship but has sex without marriage, any man knows she's a liar.  Given that marriage means so little to her, how can he trust her not to stick him with other men's children if he marries her?  "Love 'em and leave 'em" means he's happy to hang out with her so long as he doesn't have to take responsibility, but why commit himself to keeping a woman who doesn't value commitment?

If she stops taking pills and chooses not to exercise her right to get an abortion, he can get tagged for child support, but that ends when the child turns 18.  If he marries, she can walk out at any time and he can be forced to pay alimony which goes on forever.  Why marry?

Women Want to be Kept

Anyone who doubts that a woman's survival mantra is "Be kept!" should think about the heated discussions of "women's issues."  For hundreds of generations, women have wanted someone else to take care of them but they didn't like depending on men.  Now that they can vote, women use their political muscle to force taxpayers to pay to keep them.

What are the "women's issues?"  College women want free birth control.  Working women want free abortions, free child care, free health care, and maternity leave.  Women who'd rather not work can go on welfare and have all their expenses covered.  Taxpayer support makes women willing to have men "love 'em and leave 'em."

Feminists chant, "sisterhood is powerful" and it is.  For generations, women were able to persuade men to labor to take care of them.   Sisterhood was powerful enough to persuade men to build civilization to make it easier for the men to take care of them, but it isn't powerful enough to pay its on way.  Sisterhood wants society to pay to keep all women regardless of cost.

What do men want?  Men want sex without responsibility, and thanks to the stalwart efforts of feminists who've downplayed the importance of marriage for lo these many decades, they've got it.

Women don't want to work hard enough to pay the costs they impose on society.  Neither do men.  As modern society has shown, very few men want to grow up, get jobs, and take responsibility for their children.

How can society survive when neither men nor women are willing to bear the costs of what they choose to do?

It can't.

Lee Tydings is a guest writer for  Read other articles by Lee Tydings or other articles on Society.
Reader Comments

So since men are lazy, promiscuous, and do not want to grow why should they work at all. Let the women do all of the work and pay all of the taxes and they can decide who gets what from the government. Men can lay around and swill beer all day long, play golf, hunt, fish or whatever they want to do. The men would not have to take care of the children since women have decided that in most all divorces that the man is incapable of rearing children and since they don't work child support would be out of the question. This is the way the women's movement has us headed. They want to be in charge so let them be in charge. They will find out that being in charge is not as easy as it looks.

Here is the bottom line, boys and girls are different. You can try all you want to but you cannot make a girl a great ditch digger or a guy a great seamstress. Marriage is the proven way for our society to advance by the couple being a team. What one earns or bakes should have nothing to do with it. It is when you try to impose gender roles that are out of sync that problems arise. The women's movement has hurt women and families in America and it is high time that they are called on the carpet for it.

May 2, 2012 5:56 PM


I agree with you in principle but not this statement:

"You can try all you want to but you cannot make a girl a great ditch digger or a guy a great seamstress"

In fact, we can do both. Technology allows women to operate excavators and backhoes just as easily as a man. And all the top fashion designers (ie. seamstresses) are actually men.

May 2, 2012 6:02 PM

My grandmother once told me that men were really, really interested in sex and that a man would do almost anything to keep me in the mood. Are you saying that most of civilization is because men worked hard to make it easier for them to keep women in the mood?

Is a man's sex drive the basis for progress? Is that what you're saying?

May 2, 2012 6:14 PM

National review doesn't think it has worked out well either:

Men’s capacity to insist upon promiscuity rests completely on female cooperation. And women have been foolishly compliant for decades.

They’ve conspired in their own disempowerment not because they love their sexual freedom (though a few may), but because people like Gloria Steinem and Ms. Bolick’s mother convinced them that the old sexual mores, along with marriage and children, were oppressive to women.

The resulting decline of marriage has been a disaster for children, a deep disappointment to reluctantly single women, and unhealthy for single men, who are less happy, shorter-lived, and less wealthy than married men. The sexual revolution has left a trail of destruction in its wake, even when its victims don’t recognize the perpetrator.

May 2, 2012 8:18 PM

All the great seamstresses are men? OK, that's predominantly true, though you should make an exception for Coco Chanel.

Are they, however, STRAIGHT men? I think not.

May 2, 2012 8:29 PM

The ditch digger and seamstress comment was meant to make a point. It had nothing to do with exceptions. When was the last time you saw a gang of female ditch diggers? And a whole host of males sitting around discussing their sewing? Let me make it clearer. There are some things that gals do better than guys and visa versa. When we marry and have a family things are typically better for all in the family. Does it really matter who makes the most money? When you come to the realization that a man and a woman are one will you finally understand things.

As for Julia's question about man's sex drive being the basis for progress here is my opinion. Men do not think about progress, they think about sex, it's in the DNA. It's also in the DNA to explore what is past the end of the horizon. Once again, boys and girls are different.

May 2, 2012 11:30 PM

@Bassboat - You are right that sex is in the male DNA pretty deep. Do you buy Julia's notion about progress being due to men wanting to make it easier on themselves to keep women happy enough to be in the mood?

May 3, 2012 6:43 PM

I think she has somewhat of a point. Think about it,when you are about to get your driver's license you want a car that will attract the girls. The better the car the more apt you are to attract the pretty girls. The best car gives you at least a chance with the girl. This little lesson motivates you to bring home the best of the bacon. It might be the reason that guys are more prone to be the inventors as cool things or new inventions gives the inventor fame and fortune. I'm sure all of these observations of mine are not pc but I don't really give a rip. As stated before, boys and girls are different and both sexes have tremendous strengths to bring to a marriage.

May 3, 2012 9:13 PM

Does this explain the double standard? If a man cheats on his wife, it doesn't affect her children so long as he doesn't spend so much on the other woman that her children do without.

If a wife cheats on her husband, she can stick him raising someone else's kid and breed him out of the gene pool. Is that why men get more upset about that than women? Or do they?

May 4, 2012 7:26 AM

Women have never been able to support themselves, it's inherent in our reproductive biology. Someone has to support women for things to go on. So the question isn't whether women will be supported, but who will do it? Husband, families, tribes, or society at large.

But kept they will be.

May 13, 2012 5:55 PM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...