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
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
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
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 -
"Of course he committed the sexual crime. After all, he will do almost anything
"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
The men stole the technologies from the women and "took them for
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.
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
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,
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
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
You still don't believe me?
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
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?
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
99% of the interactions that men have with women have got nothing to do
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
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
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
The word 'emotion' suddenly disappears when it comes to sex and
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
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
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."
has Lewis Wolpert misunderstood what the word 'emotion'
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
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
... one has to ask: Where is the science? Where is the rational
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)
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
"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
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
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
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
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
(An example of this can be seen in my piece entitled
Who Really Engages More In Self Harm; Men Or
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.