X Close

Feminism has a biology problem There's not much girl power in the animal kingdom

Get a room. (Getty).


March 1, 2022   6 mins

If you remember anything about sex differences in biology lessons, it’s likely to be this: males mate as much as possible. They evolve horns to fight off competitors, and beautiful ornaments to win over females. Females, by contrast, focus their energies on choosing the single best male out of all those available. For males, it’s quantity that matters; for females, quality.

As Charles Darwin put it, the female, “with the rarest of exceptions, is less eager than the male”. Males work to “sedulously display their charms before the female”, who “requires to be courted”. This distinction between chaste females and indiscriminately horny males became a central principle of evolutionary theory for much of the 20th century.

Females — the sex defined by production of large gametes, and in most animal species the sex that either lays eggs or gives birth to young — have a physical limit on the rate at which they can produce offspring. Once you’re pregnant, you can’t get more pregnant by having sex again. Males, on the other hand, are not limited in the same way: if they manage to find two sexual partners instead of one, the maximum number of offspring they could have is doubled.

This binary is neat, has instinctive appeal, and has been enormously influential in the wider public imagination. Perhaps most overtly nowadays, it remains popular in the “manosphere”, where men lament that “Chads” are swimming in attention from “hypergamous” women while average Joes get ignored.

Except of course, like most tidy binaries, this one turns out to be an oversimplification. In her latest book, Bitch, zoologist Lucy Cooke addresses misconceptions about the role of females in the animal kingdom. One of the main takeaways is that the idea females are not naturally slutty is due for an update: today’s cougars “are leading sexually liberated lives, for the benefit of themselves and their family, with no shame attached”.

But why would they do this? Isn’t more than one baby daddy surplus to requirements? Though less obvious, there are evolutionary benefits to playing the field for females as well as for males. Having multiple fathers improves the genetic diversity of a female’s offspring, for instance, and provides insurance in case one is infertile. It can help you trade up in mates, too: if you’re “shacked up with Mr Average”, you might pay a visit to your “neighbour, Mr Fabulous, for some superior genes”.

Cooke tells us how anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy suggested as early as the 1970s that female philandering could serve a different purpose altogether: protecting offspring. One of the bleaker facts of life is that infanticide is a fairly common practice in our primate cousins, and the animal kingdom more widely, since it “forces the bereaved mother into oestrus, making her readily available for fertilisation” months or years ahead of schedule. Hrdy’s idea, inspired by her observations of Indian langur monkeys, was that by “confusing paternity”, mothers might secure protection, or at least benevolent tolerance, from males who think the baby might be theirs.

The assumption of female monogamy was so strong that for a long time observations to the contrary were written off as anomalies. The idea that female songbirds, for instance — the very symbol of marital bliss — might be sneaking off to find a bit on the side was seen as ludicrous. Perhaps these poor birds were being raped, or else there must be some kind of hormonal malfunction.

Eventually, in the 1990s, these assumptions were overturned, partly thanks to the fact that biologists could now determine paternity through DNA. The conclusion they reached was this: polyandry (that is, when a female mates with multiple males) is much more common, across the whole animal kingdom, than we had previously thought. Many species thought to be monogamous have “affairs” — and often, it is the females that actively seek out these liaisons.

This rewriting of evolutionary theory to include female promiscuity is, of course, catnip to any popular science writer of a feminist bent. As well as in Bitch, this tale features prominently in Angela Saini’s Inferior and Cordelia Fine’s Testosterone Rex — books sold as explicitly feminist reappraisals of scientific consensus. Other topics Cooke covers will appeal to the same audience, from the science of the female orgasm to the lady spiders who dominate in the bedroom by killing and eating their lovers (in response to which, males show counteradaptations “that would make even Christian Grey blush” — oral sex, bondage, and threesomes).

But what’s typically missing from these accounts is context. Because, although Cooke is right to refute the patriarchal falsehood that females only want monogamy, this doesn’t mean we should leap to the opposite conclusion that females seek as many mates as possible; or that there are no systematic differences between the sexual proclivities of females and males. Casual readers of Bitch will likely be left with both these impressions, though.

The benefits of polyandry to females are actually limited: one meta-analysis of 35 species found that overall, it had only a modest effect on the number of offspring produced, and no measurable effect on what proportion of offspring survived. Another meta-analysis, this time focusing on insects, suggests that you can have too much of a good thing: having multiple mates increased females’ fertility, but reduced their lifespan, leading the authors to conclude that the optimum number of mates was probably “intermediate”.

Rigid oversimplification though it may be, as a general rule of thumb Darwin was right: females are often “less eager than the male”, and this divergence can be explained by the different reproductive investments required by each sex. Reading Bitch, you’d be forgiven for thinking this theory was completely debunked, but in fact the logic remains sound, even if we’re now more familiar with the exceptions and caveats.

It’s tempting, if you believe men and women should be equal, to argue that this state of affairs is “natural”. But a key lesson of biology is that if you look closely at any blissful-seeming union, you will find an imperfect alliance, with each party driven by their own interests as well as shared goals. Conflict rages between sexual partners over when to mate, over how promiscuous each of them should be, and how much care each should devote to their shared offspring. The size of new-born mice, for instance, seems to result from a compromise between genes: the fathers’ encourage a developing foetus to grow larger by leaching energy from the mothers, while the mothers’ push them in the other direction.

Another result of conflict between the sexes is that, bluntly, forced and coerced mating is common in the animal kingdom; from insects, to the chickens I’ve spent the last four years studying, to our cousins the orangutans, where one researcher observed almost 90% of copulations to be forced. This is a result of the difference in “choosiness” between the sexes: if on average females are more “choosy” than males, then there will be many situations where they don’t want to mate but a male does.

Perhaps this is why feminist science writers tend to avoid studying conflict between the sexes, even though it has obvious implications for the feminist movement: in this field, there are some inconvenient truths. Popular discussions of sexual conflict and potential implications for human society come almost exclusively from older male biologists, who are predictably (and not always unfairly) accused of insensitivity or suspect motives; a prime example being the spectacularly controversial A Natural History of Rape by Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer.

In Bitch, we do hear about the nasty and exploitative side of sexual selection, albeit briefly. Cooke’s account of Hrdy’s infanticidal langurs alerts us to the fact that not all female promiscuity follows a “girl power” narrative — it can be the result of something much darker. In her chapter on genital evolution, we learn that the bizarre vaginas of female ducks — which have “helical piping”, “opposing spirals and strange cul-de-sacs” — likely evolved in response to the high rate of forced mating in these birds: their convoluted tracts seem to reduce the chance of fertilisation in such encounters and allow them some control over who fathers their offspring.

But despite the rest of the book being woven with — arguably premised upon — implicit or explicit anthropomorphisation, any such speculations in this case are quickly headed off by a footnote implying that to ask whether rape in human and non-human animals might be related phenomena is to “dangerously” suggest that “a rapist lives inside all human males”. Humans and animals are, in this case, completely different beasts. “This is a very important distinction to make”. It feels as though there’s a lack of curiosity in this kind of popular science book for any aspects of the natural world that don’t fit into the story their audiences want to hear.

It’s no surprise that feminist biologists have little appetite for potentially pessimistic messages from nature. For a start, it’s pretty much the polar opposite of “sex positive”. It’s also at odds with the current trend within feminism to minimise, rather than emphasise, differences between the sexes.

And then, of course, it’s just depressing. Most of us are reluctant to accept fatalistic views of the world, which skate too close for comfort towards potentially disturbing implications for our own species. Readers of popular books on feminism are on average likely to be highly agreeable people, who value pleasantness and see the best in others. They are probably also “low decouplers”, who feel ethically uneasy with “separating is from ought“. According to Cooke, the idea that sexual violence is more than just a man-made aberration is “dangerous” — perhaps even morally repulsive to contemplate.

Feminists are, in general, resistant to the idea that any aspect of sexism could be “natural”, or in male interests to maintain. It’s easier to assume that it’s all a big misunderstanding. But the point of science is to understand the world as it is, not to pick and choose parts to present in a certain light. A blinkered lack of imagination led decades of male biologists to ignore inconvenient evidence and assume females were passively monogamous. Correcting that imbalance shouldn’t mean assembling a contradictory narrative to promote in its place, despite the evidence.


Ellen Pasternack is a PhD student in evolutionary biology at Oxford University.

pastasnack_e

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

30 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Peter LR
Peter LR
2 years ago

Interesting article, Ellen, and you make your point. If we go further then we could extrapolate from ‘Feminism has a biology problem’ to ‘woke has a biology problem’! You have confirmed that there are only two genders and that they are distinctive (I hope you don’t get thrown out of Uni for being a biophile).
I wish we would all go one step further to acknowledge that ‘society has an evidence problem’. You are correct that human and animal behaviour are different. So why won’t we acknowledge the importance of a stable family structure to the wellbeing of children which is so well-evidenced? I was made aware of a study which found that stable family structure added up to 15 IQ points to the educational achievement of disadvantaged children. And on a related point, why is the Government ignoring the Sewell report on racism which was well-evidenced and made similar conclusions?
PS Ellen, were you hinting that you are not a feminist? If so, two hats off to you.

Last edited 2 years ago by Peter LR
Terence Fitch
Terence Fitch
2 years ago
Reply to  Peter LR

Taught in ‘urban’ UK schools for many years. Anecdote alert- growing sense of fluid family structures changing kids in many different ways. No need to be judgmental- life is ,self evidently, just more emotionally complicated when kids crave certainty and continuity. Definitely a sense of some teen boys angry without a Dad around and teen girls increasingly dealing with upsetting ups and downs. Single parent family life is just more exhausting and generally less well off. There is a cost.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
2 years ago
Reply to  Peter LR

I thiink you are probably correct, about the stable family structures, but one would have to admit that it is hard to separate cause and effect in these cases. In other words, people tend to think something it proved because they think it is obviously true to start with, not because the evidence is immensely clear.

Peter LR
Peter LR
2 years ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Rasmus, the studies around this are comprehensive in agreement; the reluctance to act on them is connected with a fear of shaming people and the push for adult rights. Here’s a taster:
https://ifstudies.org/blog/children-first-why-family-structure-and-stability-matter-for-children

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
2 years ago
Reply to  Peter LR

Well, there is no doubt on the data, but how to act on them is rather less clear. Sure, married couples are generally richer, more stable, have more resources, and have more positive outcomes. But is it the marriage that causes it, or are the people who are better off, more stable, etc. more likely to get and stay married? If the unmarried married, how much would it help?

It is well established that children in homes with more books have better school results. One US governor apparently made a program of delivering books to all homes – but as it turned our giving a family a box with twenty books did not have any effect on their shcool results.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
2 years ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

It’s not about possessing books. It’s about developing a culture of reading.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
2 years ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

Exactly – that was the point!

Al M
Al M
2 years ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

That reminds me of Scotland’s own bit of cargo cult nonsense, by adopting the Finnish baby box scheme. Obviously a great idea for a poor, newly emerging country several decades ago which has become part of Finnish national identity.
Why would this suddenly improve outcomes in the UK in the 21st century?

Last edited 2 years ago by Al M
Sean Penley
Sean Penley
2 years ago
Reply to  Peter LR

I would argue woke doesn’t have a biology problem, because that would imply it is making arguments it doesn’t understand. And while that may be true for some of those jumping on the bandwagon, the movement itself, going back to its Marxist roots, has been doing this for a long, long time: making odd, even counterfactual arguments as a means to divide society. They don’t believe them, they are just finding ways to destabilize. What we call woke is just the latest iteration. From the Bolsheviks in Russia to the Frankfurt school, progressivism has long sought to divide societies because turbulent times create new opportunities for non-traditional ideas and players to gain power. Traditionally they had had to custom-tailor their arguments to a given society, but modern communications, in particularly the internet, have allowed more commonality of ideas across the world.

DA Johnson
DA Johnson
2 years ago
Reply to  Sean Penley

This is an insightful analysis, which points out that seemingly different movements, over the past 100+ years, use the same techniques and have the same goal of ‘divide and conquer’.

Ubaid Butt
Ubaid Butt
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter LR

No where she said there are only two genders. Gender is not same as sex because a large part of gender is socially constructed.

Also, I don’t understand the implication of this article. Her argument proves that female are not naturally chaste. They are just more selective, even when it comes to short-term sexual strategy. Also, one primary difference between human and animal promiscuity is that the latter is for procreation purposes. Humans on the other hand, engage in causal sex for pleasure.

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
2 years ago

Kudos to Ellen for stepping into this minefield. Being so far “off message” at Oxford can’t be easy.

The complexity of human society, and the rules that therefore have to govern it’s interactions, have always led us to believe we’re exceptional. The interplay between animal urges, and our capability for rational override of them, is endlessly fascinating and a wonderful field for logical, evidence based study.

Naturally it is therefore anathema to the woke.

Ubaid Butt
Ubaid Butt
1 year ago
Reply to  Martin Bollis

So are you saying that we(men) have some natural urge to rape women? What evolutionary advantages a man gains from committing rape in modern world? He’s likely to end up in prison or sentenced to death in some cases. Rape is not about procreation in modern world either. It’s purely related to sexual pleasure. Rape is largely related violence and power too. In order to commit rape, one needs to exert dominance. What explains rape of children and older people? male- on-male rape? Female-on-male rape? Or even rape of animals? What evolutionary advantage someone is getting in all these scenarios?

Last edited 1 year ago by Ubaid Butt
William Shaw
William Shaw
2 years ago

Careful Ellen, you risk being cancelled if you continue with honest and reasoned appraisals of the scientific evidence.
Feelings seem to be more important than facts these days.

Last edited 2 years ago by William Shaw
Ubaid Butt
Ubaid Butt
1 year ago
Reply to  William Shaw

What she really implied to begin with? What I get from her article is that females in animal kingdom are promiscuous and not chaste as they were thought to be. However, the promiscuity in animal Kingdom is not same as promiscuity in human beings. We are not same as animals. We have also invented different methods to control reproduction. What is the purpose behind this? From a reproduction pov, promiscuity benefits human male. However, human males don’t engage in promiscuity for reproductive reasons. It’s overwhelmingly pleasure seeking. Polygamy has disappeared in western and most part of the world. A man can only keep one wife in majority of the countries. Sex has clearly being detached from procreation in human beings. Thus, the purpose of being promiscuous in human male or female, is to seek pleasure in modern society.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ubaid Butt
Geoff Cox
Geoff Cox
2 years ago

Well written and balanced article in my view and it confirms various things I’ve seen and read over the years. From memory, the most recent concerned bluetits. When we see two parents feeding chicks on the nest, the research suggested that in a good number of the nests (25%?), the male was not the biological father. This actually doesn’t matter terribly much as presumably somewhere else another male is raising his chicks. In fact, this is a pretty good arrangement because there is a social order and genetic diversity is maintained.
On the other hand presumably, if only alpha males got to father offspring, a species would evolve incredibly rapidly and narrowly which would make it ultimately less able to survive.

laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
2 years ago
Reply to  Geoff Cox

In many species while the rest of the neighborhood is fattening up for winter the alpha class males exhaust themselves competing. They’re far less likely to survive until spring. And no one seems to be studying what the teenagers are doing behind the bleachers during the big game.
I think, as usual, any facile, simple answer to the big questions posed by Darwin’s theory is bound to be wrong.

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
2 years ago

It’s no surprise that feminist biologists have little appetite for potentially pessimistic messages from nature. 
Feminist biologist? Is that is a scientist who has an a priori commitment to a political ideology? if so, how is the scientific method practised in order to avoid confirmation bias and motivated thinking etc?
Cooke is right to refute the patriarchal falsehood that females only want monogamy,… 
Also, it would have been helpful to have unpacked the evidence that ‘females only want monogamy’ is a patriarchal statement per se, and also whether patriarchy as a concept exists as a feature of the real world, or is a reified concept.

Last edited 2 years ago by michael stanwick
Terence Fitch
Terence Fitch
2 years ago

Interesting article which suggests complexity rather than simplification. Another variable is age: males at 17 and males at 50, say? At 17, raging drives but also raging embarrassment, lack of status and acne. Other variables like human investment in large brained offspring requires a group including grandparents etc so ‘morality’ and disapproval of promiscuity? Writing this while helping out with lively 14 month old hence abbreviation! She’s having a nap and so will I….

Martin Smith
Martin Smith
2 years ago

In the animal kingdom (domain?), sex is driven by a procreative imperative. In human beings this has been superceded by pleasure pure and simple with procreation as an exception rather than as a rule.

Caroline Watson
Caroline Watson
2 years ago
Reply to  Martin Smith

Animals copulate because they want to. They don’t do it because they want babies. That just happens.

Malcolm Knott
Malcolm Knott
2 years ago

In fact they may not make the connection.

Martin Smith
Martin Smith
2 years ago

Of course.

Malcolm Knott
Malcolm Knott
2 years ago

Having heard Lucy Cooke on the radio I detect that this is popular science with an agenda; not always a happy combination and in this case, not a very attractive agenda.

Last edited 2 years ago by Malcolm Knott
michael stanwick
michael stanwick
2 years ago
Reply to  Malcolm Knott

Yes. Not descriptive scientific statements but prescriptive scientific statements. Is and ought being conflated perhaps.

Julie Kemp
Julie Kemp
2 years ago

Feminism is an ‘ism’ and therefore a default. Femininity is by degree within the grander context of Womanhood. Each sex of a Person is transcended with the ‘right’ mindset and not egotistical fantasies which so easily go to distort and destroy. I praise and reverence the Masculinity of a male person just as i do the Femininity of a female person. In individual balance of forces and intentions grounded in love/respect and mutual complimentarity ‘magic’ happens.

Caroline Watson
Caroline Watson
2 years ago
Reply to  Julie Kemp

Feminists support women because they are female, not because they are ‘feminine’.

laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
2 years ago

There’s humor in all this. For instance the picture of the “experts”, circa 1960, all male, married, homeowners, etc. all sitting around together convinced of the fact that science has proven that women, including their own wives, are definitely NOT screwing the adorable new pool-boy and/or the handsome tennis pro.
And their wives smiling sweetly and agreeing while he man-splains about it over dinner.

Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
2 years ago

What other species regularly mate for pleasure instead of just to procreate?

Ubaid Butt
Ubaid Butt
1 year ago
Reply to  Diane Merriam

Right. What is the implication of this article? Hookup culture or causal sex is about pleasure. Contraceptives have fully changed the way we used to view sex. No one, either men or women, wants to have kids with causal partners. It basically favors feminists because now they have evidence for why females are not monogamous by nature either. Not implying that costs for women are not higher for engaging in causal sex, but causal sex is not about procreation at all. Even the women who cheat, are seeking pleasure, just like unfaithful male partners.