Perceived Higher Need

One of the primary things that keeps people in relationships with each other is need for unconditional love and need for physical comfort and safety.

By believing in the theory that men are driven by a primary need to “spread seed” and women to “protect nest,” we aren’t just subscribing to some abstract theory of evolution. We are also subscribing to a much broader set of ideas and beliefs that effect our day-to-day lives, which have nothing to do with evolution. They are ideas that keep power structures stable.

This idea of evolutionary urges insists that there are wide, gaping differences in the needs of men and women sexually, and that those needs are the most powerful of all needs. That women need men to “stick around,” and so are neurotic or otherwise not good enough if they are single or can “catch” a mate. This has implications on women’s self-image and worth, and implications that the sexual identity of women is completely contingent on a man’s sexual desire for her.

For men this theory tells them that they don’t need emotional and physical comfort and unconditional love and attention from a stable community. That if they don’t think about and desire sex 24/7 that there is something “wrong” with them. And it gives monuments of excuse for a “boys will be boys” attitude that not only allows sexist and misogynist men to continue their sexual harassment and prejudice, but encourages new generations that this is the way to gaining acceptance, it’s a right of passage.

As individual groups, men and women both suffer from this extremely simplistic theory, which excludes many factors of culture and not-biological conditioning that influence behaviors.

And then there is the need thing again. In relationship, this dynamic causes women to have more percieved needs from men in day-to-day life than visa versa. And therein lies the emotional support structures for a power differential that keeps men “needing less” and having more power over women who “need more.”

God, Evolution, Equality

Apparently, in ancient Egypt, women and men were essentially equally autonomous as men and were free to pursue life. They believed the universe was ordered and rational in truth and balance, and the deity that maintained, indeed represented, this was a goddess called Maat. She was invoked whenever there was something to be judged, and she was the law that Pharaohs had to follow.

The ancient Egyptians were seen by neighboring countries as having their social order screwed up, since in Egyptian culture, men did not find the need to restrict women (other cultures did, in order to keep women focused on child-rearing), and women and men’s roles overlapped more–women in commerce and on ships and doing manual labor and fighting, while it wasn’t seen as odd for men to stay home and do child care while the women were out. Women were still seen as mothers and home-makers first, but they were not constricted by mandate to give birth to a ton of children ( they didn’t need more children for workers), so they had more freedom.

Then the Greeks came along and adopted the same idea but called it Logos.

Then the Christians, and they started out calling it Logos, but ended up with Jesus.

Somewhere along the way the idea that this Maat was the female balance of the universe lost its meaning, because somewhere in there SHE got changed to HE, therefor when Maat/Logos/Jesus is invoked in matters of judgement and rule, the female is not maintained, represented, protected, it’s not respected or valued. This is the world we live in today.

Natalie Angier’s essay “Biologically Correct” gives a great synopsis of what she thinks is wrong with evolutionary psychology today–the belief systems that credit men for being more energetic and ambitious, restless in their sexuality and in life, while women are seen as more sedentary, using their influence to try to trap men into commitments.

She postures that men and women share the same two innate desires: 1) access to resources like water, food, and clothing/shelter; and 2) control over their sex lives and reproduction. And since men cannot give birth, for men number two means control over women.

That women have been solely reliant on a men’s paychecks and support is very recent, she argues. Because, like other primates, human women have always developed powerful networks of community to help them raise their young, giving and receiving the resources needed for survival among their groups.

In these systems, men are not needed for much more than a sperm donation as far as I’m concerned–a good reason for men to restrict women to very confined areas of society, so that they are not able to access the resources and networks that are required for a more independent lifestyle. (Female humans are the only primates that cannot freely walk down the streets of their neighborhood without being harassed and attacked by their male counterparts…WTF?)

Keeping women pregnant is another way to keep women more dependent, which is what Christianity has forced on women since it’s inception. In fact, studies show that when women have control over their reproductive rights, birth rates fall and so does poverty. Obviously the ancient Egyptians did not need as many children as laborers, because women helped with the physical work, so the excuse that a farmer, for instance, needs more children, is bullshit. If the women weren’t pregnant and suckling so much, they’d be plowing and tilling.

I’m not arguing that women today should find ways to not need men–although I firmly believe that all women should be financially and emotionally stable enough (i.e. enough friends and family in their networks) to survive on their own at the drop of a hat. I’m arguing that we humans must have brains big enough to work out a deal that allows women autonomy, respect, and empowerment, while both men and women are happy with their reproductive roles.