The rules may be underwritten by biology — I don’t disagree with you on that much. But those rules are tempered by societal expectations which are structured in a particular way. This is why the majority of men do not commit violent acts of rape (though obviously some do). The biological instinct can be overwritten — and that means that women could approach men, despite that being against their biological drive.
If we agree that men do the approaching and women do the sexual selection (as per biology), then more women need to be clued up about how men think and how damaging it can be to experience regular sexual rejection. And both males and females need to be taught this from a young age. If all men were fine and dealing with this we would have neither incels nor a terrifying suicide rate for young men in the 18–40 age group. I expect to see that get worse over the next few years.
As feminism continues to be defining ‘acceptable’ male behaviour and making it more socially threatening to act on your initial attractions. (The original article being an example of this in action) then the question needs to be widened and responsibility has to cut both ways. It has to be pushed back and stated in an equal society, this is an ‘us’ problem, not a ‘male’ problem. That’s what I meant by ‘should’
The reality (I suspect) is that the majority of people are happy with the way we are biologically programmed and that as humans we will muddle through. However, this muddling through and potential miscommunication is being caught up as part of the modern feminism movement. We will see male anxiety skyrocket, and instead of ‘humans’ finding the centre ground, we will have ultra-male and ultra-female ideologies competing for dominance in the courts and in the court of public opinion (social media).
If nothing else and on a positive note at least this societal anxiety will lower the birthrate — and that can’t be bad for the planet and climate change at all. Thanks for your comment and continuing the discussion. I don’t disagree with you at all on what you’ve said, I just think that the original article failed to acknowledge the underlying equality it was theoretically pushing for. It only did half the job.
