January 16th, 2024

 A remarkably engaging discussion that I had tuned into over the last three days by way of a podcast.  A certain Dr. Sarah Hill- some sort of expert on female biological research was sharing some of her findings as a researcher in a rather arcane subject. The broad discussion was on the notion that women are somehow told things systematically that actually deny various natural biological features that are salient to them. This is a typical right wing argument against feminism but it goes a bit more precise than what you usually hear when discussing this subject- mostly in the garb of  that very political theme that foes by "feminism". What you usually hear is that women are meant to have children, men can't- and therefore it is not natural for women to focus on a career and a endeavor to climb the corporate ladder at the cost of other domestic responsibilities. This notion interestingly came to the fore for the first time contemporaneously with the invention of the birth control pill. This , many have said, is without doubt the most important invention of the 20th century- ahead of the atomic bomb. This invention allowed women to indulge in sexual activity without the biological price that came with it- that of pregnancy.  Prior to this, women had a disproportionate price to pay for sexual activity as compared to men. Men could not care who they mated with, because there was technically no downside- they never got pregnant and therefore there was cramping of their style. Licentious behavior on part of the women, on the other hand, meant she might be saddled with a number of encumbrances. One she might get pregnant and therefore need to give birth. It is also possible she has to raise the child without the father - who may have disappeared after impreganting her ( since there is no cost to this, as mentioned). This might be economically difficult even if she were well qualified to provide for the kid- because it is hard to mother a child and provide for it economically both at the same time. It would mean the women has to be both the man and the woman. Double responsibility with a massive pay cut- a terrible deal. Not least also because of typically an insidious social stigma that came with this predicament- that had other psychologically stifling consequences. But once the birth control pill was born, all of this changed. On the one hand, women could be far more casual with partners, which meant they could test the waters far more before they selected someone. Even if they were already married, they could focus on their career and choose not to have kids without in any way compromising conjugal life- at least until they felt ready. This led to women storming into workforce and making GDP go galloping for the last 60 years. All of which is generally speaking a good story , atleast for most women. Or seemed to be.

However, one of the findings of taking the birth control pill was that it somehow impacted the hormones in women such that they began to be attracted to less male males, if you know what I mean. In simple words there are seemingly evolutionary consequences of this that are now becoming apparent- even within the relatively short span of 60 years. Prior to the birth control pill, women's hormones were such that they were attracted to the typical male archetype signified by extreme competence and fierce competitiveness- the man who liked and was able , above all things, to win the contest with other males. They identified such people in many ways- aside of the obvious personality traits. They looked to other markers like status or popularity, wealth, looks and so on. However, once pill came along, intuitively the first women on the pill did not need to look for men that were those things- because they di don't have to be the sole provider. The woman could now also provide. Hence the women started to get attracted to the more caring, safe man who could be entrusted to always be there and take care of the kids- simplistically speaking. These were men that were more like women. And since women began to get attracted to such men, it meant that such mean began to flourish now where before they were outcasts. And with this came a natural drop in male testosterone in such men. In summary the result of the birth control pill, over the more long term, was that the biological gender codes got blurry- not just notionally but biologically. Women had less estrogen and men had less testosterone. Women became more like men and men became more like women. 

Another curious point is that men's testosterone levels are not cyclical while women's are. Women release high levels of estrogen twice a month which make their desire for sexual activity both somewhat independent of the presence of a male as well dependent more on that specific times of the month. On the contrary, testosterone in men would go up in the presence of an attractive woman, but also when their favorite sports team had won,. So men would always be ready but women would be ready only in specific pockets of time. Apart from being ready, the actual window of opportunity for sex to result in conception was even tighter. Roughly this window was only 5 or 6 days long within a 30 day period.

Feminists tell women that the career is the most important thing in their life, and they systematically disavow the role of child bearing. This results in women not picking just the career- but picking both and getting really stressed trying to excel in both. For most women, trying to excel in both causes both physical as well as mental health issues. Also, most career woman who achieve outlandish success in high powered jobs tend to downsize and focus on mothering children at the peak of their professions. Because for women, biologically it is not about winning the contest- unlike the male. Once the woman has cumulated wealth and proved whatever point it intended to, it is happy to jettison the trappings of this in a heartbeat in favor of the more natural pursuit. Not so a man, for whom it only about winning the contest.

The other really interesting postulation by Sarah was that Universities were increasingly filled with hyper competent women but mediocre men. This is because brilliant women still preferred academia since it offered them the type of flexibility to have a family and fulfill easily the role of the mother. Men did not because it didn't pay as much as a high powered job on Wall Street- which was more preferable. As a result the spirit of the university was most influenced by women- by extension feminist women and then again by extension women who were far left of center. This argument was then used to explain how the Academia over the last 50 years had become so left wing and communist. 

Imagine that- in summary, unless I am much mistaken, what we are saying is that the precipitous decline in our Academic insitutions into a spiral of left wing fanaticism and/or woke ness- was all caused by the invention of -drumroll- the birth control pill