Satoshi Kanazawa writes a blog for Psychology Today called The Scientific Fundamentalist. This doesn't mean that he's a Christian Fundamentalist--frankly I think he'd have a brighter view of human nature if he were--but that he believes human behavior originates in the "fundamental" source of evolution.
I agree that human behavior is evolved, but I believe that we evolved into humans. If we still had the hierarchies and behaviors of apes on the savannah, we'd be apes on the savannah. (Also, even apes are often more complex than Kanazawa assumes.) It's like saying "dolphins are descended from land creatures with legs, therefore dolphins have legs." And the idea that men are harem-keeping sperm machines and women are antler-contest-judging baby machines is some serious dolphin legs. Morality, creativity, abstraction, empathy--these are our flippers.
But science schmience, it's all just a very loose framework for Kanazawa to be a garden-variety douchebag.
On successful women:
When we think of “successful women,” we don’t think of the Octomom, Nadya Suleman, even though, in purely reproductive terms, she is probably the most successful person in the United States today. We cannot think of any other woman – or man – who has produced 14 children. Nadya Suleman is 14 times as successful as Hillary Clinton is, but Suleman is not the one we have in mind when we think of “highly accomplished successful women.” [...] Nobody recognizes women who are successful in female terms.
Sure, and in purely number-of-toes terms, that girl in India with four legs was the most successful woman in the world. Redefining "success" to something that provides considerably less happiness and security and self-actualization than, you know, success, is just a word game. I'm not knocking babies, but if sheer number of babies is the way women succeed, I want a dick right now.
...Hey, what about guys who father umpty-zillion kids? Why aren't they the paragons of success in male terms? What more could a man aspire to?
On why women secretly want their husbands to cheat:
All women have a vested reproductive interest to marry a man who is as desirable and attractive (physically and otherwise) as possible, but the more desirable and attractive the husband is, the greater the chances that other women would want him as well and thus the greater the chances that he would be unfaithful. There is a surefire way to guarantee that their husband will never cheat on them, and that is to marry the biggest loser that they can find so that nobody else would want him. But obviously no woman would want to do that.
Yeah, and the whole concept of a guy who is desirable but also has ethics and self-restraint is a wishful-thinking myth, rather than, you know, the norm among humans. You know what I really don't get about all these just-so stories? Why, if humans are inevitably programmed to act a certain way, they don't act that way more. If men are born to cheat as the sparks fly upward, where did the idea of monogamy even come from? (Don't try and tell me with a straight face that women won't sleep with another woman's man.) If indiscriminate polygyny was natural for humans, we'd--naturally--be doing it.
This shit about "you should be grateful, bitch, it means I'm good enough for you!" makes me really wish he was a Christian Fundamentalist. At least they understand monogamy.
On why feminism is "illogical, unnecessary, and evil":
The fact that men and women are fundamentally different and want different things makes it difficult to compare their welfare directly, to assess which sex is better off; for example, the fact that women make less money than men cannot by itself be evidence that women are worse off than men, any more than the fact that men own fewer pairs of shoes than women cannot be evidence that men are worse off than women.
Well, I happen to be a woman who somehow learned to speak human languages, and I would like to assure you that I like money--and political power, and sexual freedom, and personal autonomy--a whole lot more than I like shoes. Even Manolos. Or babies. Or, OMG, baby Manolos. What women want isn't some mystery and it isn't different from men; we want what people want.
Another fallacy on which modern feminism is based is that men have more power than women. Among mammals, the female always has more power than the male, and humans are no exception.
EPIC ZOOLOGY FAIL.
Also, humans are the only animal capable of replacing an "is" with a "should" when it comes to our social structure. Lack of language and abstraction means no lioness is ever going to say to the others, "hey ladies, how about we don't bring him free food and let him kill our cubs today?" People can do a little better than that.
On how women's ability to refuse sex means they're, like, totally in charge of the world:
Imagine for a moment a society where sex and mating were entirely a male choice; individuals have sex whenever and with whomever men want, not whenever and with whomever women want. What would happen in such a society? Absolutely nothing, because people would never stop having sex! There would be no civilization in such a society, because people would not do anything besides have sex. This, incidentally, is the reason why gay men never stop having sex: there are no women in their relationships to say no. Sexually active straight men on average have had 16.5 sex partners since age 18; gay men have had 42.8.
So yeah, all those gay artists and writers and politicians and freakin' gay fry cooks for that matter? Clearly couldn't be contributing to society, because they're way too busy having sex.
I always wonder why "men don't say no to sex" bullshit is often found in the same arenas as "men are innately and irrevocably attracted to Megan Fox, sorry uggos" bullshit. If men will go for anything with a vagina, how can they also be such picky fucks?
“For a man to walk into a bar and have his choice of any woman he wants, he would have to be the ruler of the world. For a woman to have the same power over men, she’d have to do her hair.” In other words, any reasonably attractive young woman exercises as much power as does the (male) ruler of the world.
A) That's not power. If I have a choice of having armies at my command and millions of acres of land and billions of dollars, or being able to fuck a dude... I'm not going go rub my chin and go "hmm, seems about even."
B) That's not true. I'm a reasonably attractive young woman (perhaps not for a Megan Fox definition of "reasonably"?) and I can't freaking do that. My pull rate, when I'm really putting it out there, is maybe 65%? And that's for any acceptable guy, not for the one single top-choice guy (as if I knew who that was anyway). Bars have other women in them, you know. Other women, and guys who aren't looking for sex, and guys who don't go for my type, and guys who are turned off when I do something awkward, and all these other crazy variables that don't exist in UGH MONKEY SEE MONKEY FUCK Land.
It might be true that an attractive young woman who goes into a real nasty dive-bar and just announces she's going to fuck someone tonight would get her choice of the joint, but that's not power, that's not even safe.
C) There is a large set of "women" that do not belong to the subset "reasonably attractive young women." What're they, chopped liver? When guys like this say "women," I get the feeling that they mean her. But she's a woman and so is she and she is no less a woman. And I don't mean to insult these women when I say I don't think they can just choose from a cock smorgasboard every time they walk into a room. (Except that biker chick. She might.) Where do they get their "power"?
Sure he's just some crazy fuck on the Internet, but he's getting paid for this shit. By actual serious grownups. It blows my mind.