Gynosympathy is the well-documented, yet poorly examined, tendency in human being to sympathize with females more than males, leading to the preferential protection and appeasement of women. As a scientific reality, gynosympathy is so well demonstrated that it is virtually irrefutable.1 As a social concept, however, it is virtually unknown. The reasons for this discrepancy are many, not least of which is that gynosympathy is such a deeply rooted phenomenon that human beings have a very difficult time recognizing it. It likely has both evolutionary and cultural aspects. For example, Bateman’s Principle would lead us to suspect that men would exhibit gynosympathy more often in the context of sexual relations (or their implied or imagined potential) which has been born out in a study by Rudman and Goodwin entitled Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: why do women like women more than men like men? that found “that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women.2 Another excellent demonstration of gynosympathy can be found in a study by Plant, Hyde, Keltner, and Devine entitled “The Gender Stereotyping of Emotions3 wherein a variety of facial expressions were posed by professional face models, photographed, and selected for their precise muscular sameness. Participants shown photos of men and women with the exact same expressions judged the women to be more sad (eliciting sympathy) and the men to be more angry (eliciting a threat response). “Even unambiguous anger poses by women were rated as a mixture of anger and sadness.” This is a clear bias of sympathy in favor of women. Of course, researchers often focus on conclusions other than gynosympathy; the authors of the PWQ study, for example, lamented that women were not allowed to be angry. Ironically, by sympathizing preferentially with women (why not lament that men were not allowed to be sad?) the researchers were exhibiting the very bias they thought they were addressing. A human gynosympathetic bias is clear. It absolutely saturates gender politics, leading to exaggerations of the plight of women like the “rule of thumb” myth, the “wage gap” myth, and the widespread belief that before the 20th century no woman could own property. It leads political activists to glamorize the history of voting rights and ignore conscription, to demonize men for fighting (and dying) in war while glossing over the well-documented role of women in urging, and even shaming, men to trek off to battle while they remained home in peace and safety. Gynosympathy distorts legislation, leading to brazenly discriminatory laws that explicitly name women as a class of victims who need special protection, even against problems (like violence) where men suffer comparable or even higher rates of victimhood. It skews medical research, leading to preferential funding for women’s health issues out of proportion to their incidence and fatality rates compared to similar men’s health issues. And, in US courts, the influence of gynosympathy drives a sexist bias in prosecution, sentencing, and execution that dwarfs the racial biases in the justice system. It is time to recognize this cognitive bias for the systemic and dangerously discriminatory influence that it is; to seek out its discriminatory influence in ourselves, our culture, and our institutions; and to push for a more rational, scientific, ethical, equitable, humane, and universally sympathetic approach to gender issues. Notes: [1] Of course, valid science being defined by falsifiable theories, nothing scientific is technically “irrefutable.” [2] Rudman and Goodwin, Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: why do women like women more than men like men?, Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 2004 Oct;87(4):494-509.

Incidentally, the same study “confirmed that women’s automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men’s” and “men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference,” making ideological theories of a “patriarchal” conspiracy to boost men at the expense of women a scientific absurdity. [3] Plant, Hyde, Keltner, and Devine, “The Gender Stereotyping of Emotions, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28 JUL 2006 [DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb01024.x]