My new book—Women After All: Sex, Evolution, and the End of Male Supremacy, published by Norton on March 9th—has produced some highly predictable, in fact predicted, reactions.
I’d written on p. 17, “this book will have something to offend almost everyone.” Three of the four groups I mentioned specifically were those (not all) feminists who deny that any important things about men’s and women’s behavior are influenced by biology; discouraged women who think I exaggerate the pace of change; and of course, the flat-earthers who think evolution didn’t happen and won’t read past the subtitle.
But the nastiest blowback by far has been from men. The first wave followed the publication of a short adaptation from the book in The Wall Street Journal. It was called—bear in mind that authors don’t write titles in newspapers or magazines—“A Better World, Run by Women,” and it generated hundreds of comments from angry men within a couple of days. I was skiing in Montana with one of my daughters and not checking in much, so I heard about them from my wife, who was alone at home. After reading them she double-locked the doors and double-checked the alarm.
I looked them over and wrote my editor at the Journal, more curious than alarmed. He apologized for forgetting to tell me not to look at them. My wife, a googler par excellence, soon discovered a “men’s rights” movement, which mobilizes instantly to swamp the comments sections of web pages suggesting that women are in any way superior.
The ones in my university email box were if anything worse. One, a few lines long, began and ended with “Fuck you,” a penetrating remark that came up often. Several asked how anyone as stupid as I could be teaching in a college. One wanted to know which parts of my body Hillary was sucking. My teensy genitalia were another common theme. On and on—you get the idea.
My editor at Norton pointed out that this avalanche of vivid aggression—we might call it male bitchiness, except it’s so much less subtle and inventive—supported one of my main claims: men are naturally more violent than women.
Then there was a favorable review in the Journal (“Matriarchy on the March”), an interview (“How the battle of the sexes is turning into a walkover for women”) as well as a review in The Times of London, an interview in U.S. News (“The End of Gender Roles”), excerpts in The Chronicle of Higher Education (“The End of Male Supremacy”) and Salon.com (“The big ‘f**k buddy’ lie”), and other reviews in The Washington Post, The Mail on Sunday (in Britain and Ireland), The Times Literary Supplement, Library Journal, and elsewhere.
The accompanying graphics were provocative to say the least. My favorites were a sword bent to make a circle over a cross (the female symbol), a woman drill sergeant yelling at male recruits (“Distaff Sergeant” was the caption), a business-suited woman glaring down over a table at male subordinates, and a varied gang of women pulling at ropes, toppling a huge statue—an idol really—of a man.
Wherever comments were possible, it was the same: a seemingly orchestrated campaign by men organized for the purpose of swamping real discussion. Is this, you ask, the readership of The Wall Street Journal and The Chronicle of Higher Ed? Probably not. In this day of re-tweets and re-postings, these trolls could have followed a trail from any wormhole in the Web.
Clearly I’ve touched a nerve, and I’m happy about that—not because there’s no such thing as bad publicity (there is), but because we are known in part by our enemies. In this case their stature is no tribute to me, but their number and character—or lack thereof—certainly are. I love being hated by these guys.
Yet I also feel for them. I’m apparently mining a deep vein of insecurity in this new, increasingly gender-fair world. Many men simply can’t handle women’s success, even at an equal, much less a superior level. And oh dear, the poor boys are destined for so much more distress as the years roll by.