That women and men have differing self-interests with respect to sex and relationships is obvious. Yet, the frequent moral judgments each sex makes against the other, in contrast to a pragmatic acceptance of reality, shows that the obvious is easily obscured.
Complaints in the manosphere that women aren’t capable of loving men as deeply as men love women confuse love and self-interest. And these complaints fail to recognize that women make the same complaint about men. For example, feminists charge men with sexism and misogyny for focusing all their attentions on beautiful young women while ignoring older women – but feminists deny biology to the same degree as creationists.
A simple biological reality is that a man theoretically can father any number of children in a given year, and he can do this over many decades. Genghis Khan is said to have had hundreds of children – maybe even a thousand. But a woman can have one child a year (or rarely twins or triplets), and this only for a couple decades. Even then, she must physically carry the fetus for nine months and then give birth, which creates a huge physical investment such that only the rarest of women would want to have as many children as physically possible. So far as we know, the most prolific woman had 69 children.
To put this in crude economic terms, supply and demand differ greatly with the supply of women (measured in reproductive capacity rather than absolute numbers) being very low and demand being very high. But the supply of men is high and demand low. This temporarily gives women an enormous amount of power. Male behaviour, then, could partially be explained in terms of overcompensation.
Considering a woman’s greater physical investment and limited number of opportunities for reproduction, it’s to be expected that she and society view the children first and foremost as hers, and his secondarily. I don’t believe this will ever change.
This also sheds light on why women, in the absence of social conditioning, are just as promiscuous as men. Her first priority is good genes, but if that man is not a good prospect for an extended relationship (likely an alpha male she only has temporary access to) then she must convince another man (a lower status but still desirable beta male) to raise the child(ren). In less structured societies a woman can sleep with lots of men, all of whom in turn will provide her with resources – thus maximizing her material well being. The modern version is a woman divorcing a man and then remarrying while continuing to collect checks from her first husband.
Though the manosphere makes much of hypergamy, women do have a natural incentive to limit such behaviours: her sexual desirability decreases with age far more than his (and his could even increase if his career takes off). Many single, middle age women who blame men for their troubles are in fact victims of their own denial of basic biology.
The Rational Male created this illustration of sexual market value:
Women in their 20s have far more power in the dating market than any other group, but they face a sudden and steep decline. Men peak later, and their decline is more gradual. Thus, a woman pushing 40 who has misread her cards may realize the problem too late. But it’s easier for a man to get a second chance later in life.
The primary male role is to provide women with resources. And there are two basic types: physical resources and action resources.
Physical resources include genes (attractiveness, strength, intelligence, etc.), food, shelter, money, status symbols, and so on. This is why even super progressive women insist on a man paying for dinner, and he has little ability to refuse.
Men account for around three-fifths of total earnings in the United States, and women are twice as likely to work part-time. Yet women account for 51% of the wealth in the United States, which is proportional to the general population. So men aren’t just buying women’s dinners.
Action resources include protection, valued skills (hunting, building, inventing, artistic abilities as a status symbol, etc.), and options for women. A man’s one option is full-time employment outside the home, but if his salary is high enough this creates a woman’s choice of full-time or part-time employment, or being a homemaker.
Notice that feminists do not promote the option of being a househusband. This would decrease a woman’s options. But feminists do promote men increasing their share of childcare responsibilities (even if she doesn’t work full-time) because this serves to increase women’s options. There’s nothing wrong with this. The only problem I have is pretending that feminism is about equality when really it’s about maximizing women’s self-interests.
Some men, however, do have an advantage that women almost never have. If he has sufficient resources to attract a younger woman, he has the option of starting a second family in middle age while his first wife has no such option (outside of expensive medical technology).