If it is true, as psychobiologists believe, that women are most attracted to wealthy men of high social status, then can men be blamed for being greedy, aggressive, and preoccupied with status? Where are the women who prefer honorable and magnanimous men whose lives are devoted to unselfish charity, scientific exploration and philosophical inquiry? If the characteristics that lead to the latter have played a key part in the advancement of humanity, as I believe they have, and there are genetic factors behind them, what is the likely impact of female preference(s) on the future of humanity? And if women are attracted to greedy men, what does that say about the women themselves?
Often people wonder why certain wealthy men must keep on doing the terrible things wealthy men do (embezzling, destructively explointing workers and the environment, making backroom "deals" with cronies, subverting fair and democratic governance, fomenting wars, and collaborating with others who do these things) to keep on getting wealthier. "How much wealth can a person ever use?," they ask. But this is overlooking an important point. Women are attracted most to the man available to them who has the most wealth, the human version of the alpha male! Is this not a recipe for unlimited avarice?
Why do women remain associated with religions that would deny all women that right, marry men in those religions, have children with them, and raise their children in those religions? Many women have the leverage to make the world a better place for all by denying the power of their fertility to men associated with oppressive religions. They could refuse to marry, or marry an unreligious person. (Perhaps in Islamic societies, women don't have such choices, but in most Western societies they do.)
But that would deprive them of the opportunities to marry many if not most of the wealthy and high status men. The choice here is between doing something good for all of humanity (including other women) and doing something "good" for themselves and their children, and many women choose the latter. Therefore, it is women's own greed which prevents them from using the ultimate power, the power of fertility itself, to make the world a better place.
Emma Goldman, a famous anarchist of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, is often held up as a role model for progressive women (sometimes even "feminists"). But she wrote:
"It is really woman's inhumanity to man that makes him what he is.... Woman is naturally perverse."
I have supported and participated in organizations to futher rights for women, including the all important right to abortion. In my experience, however unfortunately, this has not been a path to find women who would do anything to help me feel better. (I probably would have gotten laid a lot more often if I were a Catholic anti-abortionist.) Now often "men"are blamed for the tyranny of anti-choice. But aren't there just as many women as men who are anti-choice? And if women prefer men who achieve high status, and if to achieve high status men must collaborate within an establishment built on tyranny, are not their preferences contributing to the tyranny of anti-choice as well?