Is there a psychological driver behind feminism?

Yesterday a supporter asked me if I knew anything about ‘dick swab’. I said I didn’t, worrying he might be about to regale me with a story about a type of cotton bud used in STD clinics. But it turned out he was referring to Dick Swaab, a distinguished 69-year-old Dutch brain scientist, whose book WE ARE OUR BRAINS: From the Womb to Alzheimer’s was recently published. A broadsheet review of the book included this:

At the hear of the book is Swaab’s insistence that neuroscience has settle the nature-nurture argument in favour of nature. As he rightly says, the orthodoxy a few decades ago was that at birth we are blank slates, destined to be scribbled on by our families and societies. The left, in particular, was obsessed with this idea, convinced it meant we could be altered by social and political change. Swaab reports bitter confrontations with nurturist gays and feminists as he tried to refute the idea of the blank slate.

In fact, he and his pro-nature colleagues won this battle some time ago and neuroscience has sealed the victory. It is plain that, at birth, we have a whole range of innate tendencies, most of which will be only marginally affected by our experiences.

The supporter then reminded me I’d had an article published by AVfM, drawing on a couple of books, Professor Louann Brizendine’s The Female Brain and Professor Simon Baron-Cohen’s The Essential Difference. The article was titled, ‘Is there a psychological driver behind feminism?’ and it’s here:

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • rawbradford

    Mike, By coincidence I have just this afternoon stumbled upon some absolutely brilliant Norwegian videos on the very subject of nature versus nurture. Apologies if this is old news to you but it may be worth passing on to others anyway. I cannot recommend these videos too highly. They are in Norwegian but with good subtitles – and some of the key interviewees are Brits/Americans speaking English. Don’t be fooled by the first half of the videos, which seem to follow an orthodox “it’s all nurture” narrative. The canny interviewer is just giving the gender studies / sociologist types enough rope to hang themselves. The second half of each video sees their position crushed by genuine scientifically based research – which clearly demonstrates the very strong role of ‘nature’ (genes). Go to When these videos were aired on Norwegian State TV they had such a profound effect that the Nordic Council of Ministers decided to close down the NIKK Nordic Gender Institute. Excellent!Rick BradfordDate: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 17:44:58 +0000 To:

  • To date the most Gender equal societies have been the communist soviet empire and the regimes in the influence of Maoists. In their heyday these regimes worked hard to eliminate any semblance of natural variation.  Among their  achievements were  a still unsurpassed vocational plurality amongst women, very much higher proportion of economically active women than the “west” and female participation in high risk roles. Pretty universal state childcare and comparatively few officially part time jobs. Little or no maternity leave meaning long uninterrupted careers. After all in a workers state everyone has to be a worker. In fact very much greater equality of outcomes than the  “Swedish model”. 
    Of course the cost of this was high in terms of the oppression needed to crush any human variations, ambitions or proclivities. Including those influenced by biology. 
    Indeed the sheer effort those societies had to devote to oppression is perhaps a measure of how strong nature is over nurture. Despite the efforts to educate their populations to be good gender equal socialists/communists. 
     I wonder why modern feminists don’t uniformly laud such equal societies? Could it be that often their own people eventually simply stopped believing in their rule or in China the party stopped  believing.  Or perhaps it is the realisation that the truth is that  those regimes demonstrate that the achievement of their kind of equality requires multiple oppressions by the state. Oppression that begins with manipulating justice to achieve policy and bypassing  democracy (as the people have a “false consciousness ” if they disagree). 
    An echo or ghost of this feminist heyday is found in the fact that Sweden is only middling on the measures of gender equality  in the EU . The really “equal” societies can be found amongst the new EU states from behind the “iron curtain” .