Dr Lewis Wolpert

The Physical and Psychological Differences Between Men and Women A lecture based on his latest book,

'Why Can't a Woman Be More Like a Man' In a recent piece of mine - entitled Who Is More Empathic - Men Or Women? - I mentioned that I was very happy to see that scientists concerned with Biology and Psychology were, finally, managing to stand up to the empty-headed nonsense that has been foisted on to the western world by ideologically driven 'scientists' for the past four decades; 'scientists' who kept denying that genes had very much to do with various psychological traits, when the evidence has always strongly pointed to the very opposite. How pleased I was, therefore, to receive an email pointing out that Dr Lewis Wolpert - a well-known UK biologist - had recently given a public lecture on the well-documented effects of genes and biology on both human brains and behaviours. the lecture turned out to consist of little more than wild speculation ... and a constant stream of venomous nonsense specifically designed to stir up hatred towards men Unfortunately, however, the lecture turned out to consist of little more than wild speculation, faulty logic, gender politics and a constant stream of venomous nonsense specifically designed to stir up hatred towards men. The lecture can be seen in full here, ... The Physical and Psychological Differences Between Men and Women Here are the main points that I would like to address in this piece.. "Men have discriminated against women for as far back as you want to go. There has been no time when men have not discriminated against women." (2 min 0 sec) This is not biology or science. It is prejudicial gender politics designed to inflame hatred towards men. And it is also untrue. The truth is that both men and women have, historically, discriminated in favour of women, not against them; essentially for four main reasons. 1. Women are physically weaker than men. 2. They are burdened by their reproductive roles. 3. Someone needs to look after the children. 4. If any group of humans allowed their women to be harmed or killed, then the group was going to extinguish itself. As a result of these undeniable facts, men have had to take on most of the arduous tasks related to 'dealing with the environment' - much of which was persistently hostile to the well-being of humans and persistently difficult to cope with. Basically, the men took charge in all areas unrelated to reproduction and offspring because, quite simply, it was they who learned the most about them, it was they who had to face them, and it was they who were better equipped to do so. "Women were subordinate." (2 min 15 sec) Women were, of course, subordinate. And quite right too. It would have been the height of stupidity to put women on a par with men when women were not directly involved with matters beyond reproduction and the caring of offspring. Indeed, if for some strange reason you were shot back in time to those primitive and dangerous days, whom would you want to take the lead in your group? Whom would you want to be in charge? The people who had the experience of dealing with important matters of survival? - including war - or the people who did not? But Lewis Wolpert makes no mention of these facts. And both his tone and delivery are quite clearly designed to inflame hatred towards men Men will do almost anything for sex. "In general, it is men more than women who have a greater desire for more casual sex. ... Men will do almost anything for sex." (8 min 20 sec) "Men will do almost anything for sex" is about as pernicious a statement as the claim that "women will do almost anything for money." This is not to say that men are not highly motivated by sex. They surely are. But this notion that men are forever at the mercy of their sexual impulses - and will do almost anything to follow them through - is a myth mostly perpetuated by men-hating women and malicious feminists who have the intention of making all men appear to be guilty whenever they are accused of sexual crimes - especially by women. "Of course he committed the sexual crime. After all, he will do almost anything for sex." "Watch out! There is a man over there talking to some children. And we all know that he will do almost anything for sex." Furthermore, of course, if Lewis Wolpert believes that "men will do almost anything for sex" then he is surely telling us something about himself. Now you might think that, "Men will do almost anything for sex," was just a throwaway line - a phrase uttered without much thought. But the rest of his lecture suggests otherwise, because it is peppered throughout with similar obnoxious stereotypes about men. "In ancient societies the supplies of food were largely provided by women. ... It is the women who developed agriculture ... They made major technical contributions ..." Lewis Wolpert then tells us that women discovered agriculture, cooking and the art of making pots. And when the agriculture became better, the men stopped going out hunting and took over all these inventions made by women - and "took them for themselves. I'm terribly sorry but that is the way that things went." (9 min 20 sec) What we see here is Lewis Wolpert apologising to the women in his audience for men having stolen the inventions of women - once again, quite clearly, trying to stir up hatred towards men. The men stole the technologies from the women and "took them for themselves." A more ridiculous notion is hard to imagine. But the women who listen to him are being told that men, once again, robbed them in some way. Men are such bast#rds, aren't they? But what evidence does Lewis Wolpert have for this malicious accusation? He has no valid evidence whatsoever. None. Zero. It is pure fabrication. And the only relevant evidence that modern anthropologists have found in connection with this issue is that in primitive societies women seemed to do a great deal of food gathering - mostly plant material. But this tells us absolutely nothing about who invented various food technologies many thousands of years ago. And it also gives us no indication whatsoever that men stole the technologies from women and "took them for themselves." Indeed, if one wants to fabricate a pro-male point of view, it could simply be said that primitive societies remained primitive precisely because women were doing much of the food gathering. And it is only when men decided to get involved with this that any significant progress in agriculture was actually made. In either case, we have no idea who invented cooking or the art of making pots. And what on earth does Lewis Wolpert mean when he says that men took the technology for themselves? Does he mean that when men saw women making pots they said, "Hey, you women. Stop making those pots. We're gonna make them." And even if they did do this, how on earth did this benefit themselves? In other words, how did laboriously making pots suddenly enhance the lives of men, but not women? And did the men also take over the cooking? - invented by women, apparently. I doubt it. Lewis Wolpert is talking utter nonsense. Feminist-inspired, feminist-fabricated nonsense. Indeed, I began to suspect that he was also going to tell us that women also invented the hand plough ... ... but then the men came along and said, "Get out of the way Woman. We are going to be the ones to sweat away all day pushing this lump of wood through the heavy soil. Off home with you." And the women thought, "We've been robbed!" It's just complete and utter nonsense, isn't it? Indeed, if men did, in fact, take over from women the various chores involved in agriculture, then my guess is that they did so whenever it became an enterprise that was too arduous and too strenuous for women to do. In other words, they did not rob women. They protected them. And why is Lewis Wolpert even addressing this issue - particularly given that it has got absolutely nothing to do with the supposed topic of his lecture, and nothing to do with science or biology? Well, in my view, he has put into his lecture this ludicrous accusation about men stealing the technology from women simply to stir up hatred towards men. You still don't believe me? Keep reading. Continuing in the same hateful manner, and quoting George Carlin (a typical politically-corrected left-wing American comedian whose low-brow humour often consisted of taking cheap shots at men) Lewis Wolpert states the following ... men are stupid "Women are crazy and men are stupid. And the main reason that women are crazy is that men are stupid." (10 min 0 sec) What has this nonsense got to do with science? Nothing. So, once again, we can see that Lewis Wolpert - who is always very keen to portray himself as a 'rationalist' and a 'scientist' - is nothing of the sort. He is not rational or scientific. He is riddled with political correctness and, quite clearly, he has a strong desire, throughout his lecture, to stir up antipathy towards men. His message is now this. Men are so stupid that it is no wonder that women sometimes act crazy. And it is important to understand this, because nearly everything in his lecture is based on the negative stereotyping of men, accompanied by an attempt to portray them as idiots, as thieves, as perpetrators of discrimination, and so on. As a Jew, one might have thought that he would be particularly sensitive to the evils that can materialise from the continued denigration and de-humanisation of people. Clearly, however, he is unconcerned about this when it comes to men. And he is doing exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews - dehumanising them on the basis of phony scientific evidence and relating it to their allegedly inferior genetic code. I quote, ... "So all you Ladies have XX chromosomes [whereas] we poor (i.e. inferior) males have X and Y." (4 min 20 sec) Men's bodies are also unattractive according to Lewis Wolpert ... "Why do men have breasts and nipples? ... they are not very sensitive or attractive." Jews were unattractive too, apparently, according to the Nazis. He then goes on to demean men yet again by suggesting that women are not much interested in them ... Quoting Virginia Woolf, "Why are women so much more interesting to men than men are to women?" (15 min 50 sec) The reason? According to Lewis Wolpert, "They [the men] like sex." Notice, once again, the denigration of men. Even women are not particularly interested in them. But Lewis Wolpert somewhat contradicts himself, because elsewhere in the lecture he also tells us that women are more concerned about relationships than are men - and there is, indeed, a mountain of evidence to support this notion. look at the soap operas and the chat shows that women love to watch For example, look at the soap operas and the chat shows that women love to watch, day after day; the books that they like to read, their main topics of conversation; etc etc. Indeed, women seem to be positively obsessed with men. And so what we see, yet again, is Lewis Wolpert making sneering remarks about men - in this case, that they are more interested in women than are women interested in them - and then he does an about-turn to tell us that women are far more concerned about their relationships. Basically, what is he trying to tell us is that men are mostly interested in women for sexual purposes whereas women's interest in men - what little there is of it - stems from their more caring natures - though, later on, he does, in fact, point to women's keenness for men who have money. But he's wrong by omission. Because the main reason that men are interested in women is because they like them, not because they want to have sex with them. Lewis Wolpert seems to have forgotten that when men and women interact with each other in the real world 'out there', sex does not come into the picture. 99% of the interactions that men have with women have got nothing to do with sex. The butcher who always gives a particularly huge smile to all the old women that he serves at the counter does not have sex with them on his mind. The gentlemen on the trains who give up their seats to women are not intending to go to bed with them that night. The loving husbands do not spend hours every day fantasising about sex with their wives - certainly not after the first few years of marriage. They just love their wives. Men also like the company of women even when there is no hope in Hell that any sex with them is ever going to take place, and even when there is not a shred of sexual intent on their minds. They just like women. And they like being with them. With much good reason. Needless to say, Lewis Wolpert made no mention of this. Sex (a bad thing) was the only driving force to receive his attention when it came to explaining the greater desire of men for the company of women. It never seemed to occur to him that men might find women to be worthy of their attentions for reasons that have nothing to do with sex. (Together with many other positive qualities, maybe women are just better listeners than are other men. More willing to talk about personal issues. More prepared to assist with problems. More caring. More interested. Who knows?) But the message to women was, "Men are just after your bodies." Here we go again, ... Quoting Stanley Baldwin, "I would rather trust a woman's instinct than a man's reason. (21 min 16 sec) Notice again the attempt to demean men relative to women. And, once again, the quote has nothing to do with science or 'rationality'. Indeed, he is subverting what he claims to be at the very forefront of his own philosophy and belief system; viz, that science and reason - not emotion or intuition - should form the basis of what we believe. So, why does he contradict himself by quoting Stanley Baldwin? Why would he do this? And my answer to this question is the same as before - simply to denigrate men relative to women. Suddenly, despite all his claims about the importance of reason, Lewis Wolpert is now suggesting that a woman's 'instinct' is more trustworthy than a man's 'reason'. A further indication that what masquerades as science is, in fact, little more than gender politics can be seen in the following quote from Lewis Wolpert's lecture. Women are much more emotional than men "Women are much more emotional than men. There is absolutely no question [about this] ... and a major difference, genetically determined, is aggression. ... Men are unquestionably more aggressive than women." (21 min 20 sec) What you see going on here is a bit of a bait and switch. Do you see the trick? The greater propensity towards sex (as mentioned earlier) and aggression does not count as 'emotion'. The word 'emotion' suddenly disappears when it comes to sex and aggression. And yet what could be more demonstrative of 'emotions' than the propensity to engage in sex or aggression? Now the reason for this little trick is, basically, to do with the fact that being 'emotional' is nowadays (in today's female-dominated society) seen as a good thing, whereas a propensity to desire sex or to be aggressive is seen as a bad thing. And men must always be portrayed in a negative light. And so any 'emotion' that might propel men towards sex or aggression must be hidden from view. Hence, for example, men's allegedly greater interest in women is to do with sex, not emotion. But even the pleasures of sex are 'emotional'. Now, some younger men might not think that their lusty sexual thoughts and feelings have anything to do with 'emotions' (and I can understand why) but - as a psychologist myself - I can assure you that, as far as psychologists and scientists are concerned, those sexy feelings come under the heading of 'emotions'. Even your orgasm is an 'emotional' experience as far as these lofty professionals are concerned. The same is true for, say, feelings of aggression. So, in short, Lewis Wolpert is telling us that "Women are much more emotional than men. There is absolutely no question [about this]" and that "Men are unquestionably more aggressive than women" and that "Men will do almost anything for sex." So, how can it be said that women are more 'emotional' than men? In what areas? After all, men are not only just more sexy and more aggressive, they are also more enthused by sports, more addicted to risk-taking, drug-taking, alcohol-imbibing, more interested in gambling, sailing, climbing, shouting, fighting, tumbling, arguing, politicking, video-gaming, driving fast, crashing cars, flying, murdering, raping, war-mongering, serial killing and committing suicide. All highly 'emotional' stuff according to the professionals who investigate these things. So, how can Lewis Wolpert say that women are more 'emotional' than men? Where is the evidence? Even the obsessive logician, a scientist or a mathematician who, like Einstein himself, sweats for thousands of hours of his life pouring over strange symbols to figure out something is driven by emotion. "I must find the solution. It's driving me nuts. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Try again." Emotion. has Lewis Wolpert misunderstood what the word 'emotion' really means Or has Lewis Wolpert misunderstood what the word 'emotion' really means when it comes to neuroscience and psychology? Well, I think that he has. I think that he sees emotions as being womanly emotions; as evidenced by, for example, crying, caring, fussing, vacillating, whingeing, screaming, emoting - and, perhaps, by being delicate, flimsy, gentle, illogical, fussy, or by being prone to tantrums and PMS. I don't really know. And it wouldn't really matter very much if this lecture was given by a layman. But given that it is by a man who presents himself as a scientist and a biologist and whose introduction includes the words ... Wolpert is known for his staunch defence of science and rational thought. ... one has to ask: Where is the science? Where is the rational thought? As an aside, I should also add that this persistent dichotomy wherein emotion is pitted against reason is rather misleading when it comes to typical debates about gender differences; because, for example, it is wholly plausible that men are not only more emotional than women but also more logical in their thinking. The one does not exclude the other. (If in doubt, think of a rabbit compared to a human.) And perhaps this is why Lewis Wolpert and others get so confused about the word 'emotion'. They erroneously view women as being more emotional than men (and, hence, are most keen to brush the emotions of men out of sight - as per above) simply because they seem to be less logical than men. In other words, they think that because women are less logical than men, then women must be more emotional than men. But the latter does not follow from the former, does it? So, to repeat myself; Where is the evidence that women are more emotional than men? And what are they getting all emotional about? After all, is the mother who is feeding the baby in the kitchen really engaging in more 'emotion' than is her son upstairs who is playing video games? And is she really engaging in more 'emotion' than is her husband who is surreptitiously salivating over naked ladies on his computer screen? Lewis Wolpert also tells us that "all the physical crimes are carried out by men." (21 min 43 sec) Not true. Indeed, one of the major differences when it comes to 'physical' crimes is that men are far more likely to be prosecuted for them than are women. Nevertheless, I do not dispute that the violence of men is, on balance, more severe than that of women. Most of their violence, however, is directed at other men, not at women. Indeed, violence against women is a relatively trivial problem - right across the planet - when compared to the violence that is directed against men. "the major emotion that distinguishes men from women ... is empathy ... and [it] probably comes from their evolutionary necessity of looking after children."(21 min 57 sec) Another blunder - because, as I pointed out in my piece entitled Who Is More Empathic - Men Or Women?, there is not much evidence, thus far, to suggest that women are more empathic than men. Indeed, demonstrating caring behaviour is about as much an indicator of empathy as is the desire to punch someone on the nose. In both cases, such behaviours might well be elicited by someone's accurate understanding of another person's 'inner state of being' - for want of a better phrase. Let me put it this way. 1. Most mammals care for their offspring. Do we conclude from this that they must be empathic? Are female giraffes and antelopes who care for their offspring 'empathising' with them? Are female mice more empathic when it comes to their offspring than are human fathers who spend most of their time at work? What about wasps? 2. Bring one of these into a home with children or, for that matter, into my own home ... ... and what happens? In my case, I can see myself endlessly kissing it, cuddling it, playing with it, feeding it, tickling it, talking to it, stroking it and, in general, looking after it - as if I'd given birth to it. Is this empathy at work? How can it be? - given that I cannot possibly know what a dog is experiencing? So how could I possibly be empathising with it despite the fact that I am 'caring' for it? 3. Serial killers often seem to derive much pleasure from hurting others. Can we not, therefore, conclude that they are 'empathising' with them - and deriving great pleasure from the pain that their victims are experiencing? Indeed, if they are not empathising with their victims, then what, exactly, is giving them such pleasure? My general point, therefore, is this. Even though women are said to be more caring than men, it does not follow that they must have a greater capacity for empathy. Furthermore, 'good' behaviour is not necessarily more indicative of empathy than is 'bad' behaviour - or, indeed, no behaviour. As such, the best that Lewis Wolpert can claim from the evidence is that women seem to be more caring towards their offspring - and perhaps towards others - than are men. But that they have greater 'empathy' is not such an easy claim to justify. He might be right. He might not be. Generally speaking, therefore, the whole area to do with gender differences when it comes to psychological matters is so jam-packed with fuzzy, woolly, ill-defined, ill-understood phenomena - all of which are currently moulded, twisted and deformed in order to conform with politically-correct dogma - that we should not accept at face value anything that neuroscientists and psychologists are currently saying about them. And when a biologist also includes in his supposedly 'scientific' lecture claims or suggestions that men are stupid, unattractive, thieves and oppressors of women, and who are comparatively both unemotional and lacking in empathy, and whose reasoning skills are less reliable than a woman's intuition, you can bet your last dollar that his various public pronouncements have very little to do with science and much more to do with being politically correct. Of course, I do appreciate the fact that Lewis Wolpert is giving a lecture on gender differences and that, as such, he is aware that hordes of angry, hysterical women could easily be inspired to descend upon him with malicious intent should he utter anything of which their feminist mullahs might disapprove, and so one might forgive him for doing what every entertainer has to do - that is, denigrate men as much as possible before daring to say anything that might give offence to the so-called 'empathic' gender. But it still irks me to see him stirring up hatred towards men through so many of his remarks. Furthermore, I would like to point out that all the evidence that I have ever seen in connection with the various issues touched upon by Lewis Wolpert are quite consistent with the view that, far from being more empathic or emotional than men, women are simply far more concerned for themselves than are men. And it is only by fudging the data and the definitions that politically-corrected scientists can claim what they do - and get away with it. (An example of this can be seen in my piece entitled Who Really Engages More In Self Harm; Men Or Women?) Finally, I would like to point out that Lewis Wolpert's negative assertions about men in his lecture are nowhere nearly as disgusting and malicious as are those that are repeatedly made by the UK biologist Steve Jones - who regards all men as parasites and who also educates his mostly female undergraduates to view men in this highly derogatory manner; e.g. see my piece entitled Biologist Steve Jones - On Parasites.