No, they can go back to their roots & ethnically cleanse anyone who’s not a part of that bloodline.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danu_(Asura)

[…] I am reminded here of Peter Frost’s On the Adaptive Value of “Aw Shucks:” […]

[…] Frost recently posted on female shyness among men–more specifically, on the observation that adolescent white females appear to become very shy […]

In other words, Euros could develop diaspora mentality and strong sense of identity with positive messages. The goal now can only be salvaging some sort of self-government, if not at national level, then at local level; clubs and societies with international links. And Euros can be the bigger man and accept everyone with some Euro heritage as part of the big family. Shrink and expire or grow and expand.

Sean,
(OT), you’re keen on the homo-germ hypothesis, I think, apologies if not. I had a thought yesterday that I’d like to share –
-do you think it is possible that homosexuality could be a side-effect of racial mixing? It’s an observation that makes me wonder but, logically, I can imagine how that might work; maybe we are ‘programmed’ within a defined set of gender-genes that could get shaken about by racial mixing?

It must be defended … or those societies are gone.

I think they’re gone already; there’s no turning back. Europeans in Europe will have to accept minority status (as they now appear in many adverts, especially mobile technology type adverts) or, they will form enclaves and, that is likely to be as unsuccessful as it has been in S Africa because, the State will not support them with ‘ethnicity grants’ the way other ‘cultures’ have been supported, and the media will villify them the way UKIP supporters are already regularly referred to as fish-heads, losers, and knuckle-draggers.

So far, ‘defense’ has been worse than futile; more like an own-goal. Europeans have to think less Euro-like and more PR-like. The word white is a busted flush. It will always be viewed as 1860 and 1933. Euros could try clever, eye-catching advertising. Something like a T-shirt with a circle of Euro heads – yellow/turquoise, red/hazel, black/blue, white/grey, mouse/green. And catch-phrases such as, ‘we love our women’.

The mate market is also influenced by geography and a tougher job market.

Men who live in big cities have access to a favorable ratio of single women to men but struggle to make enough money to make them a viable long-term catch, hence the urban dating market contains lots of caddish guys and over-fussy, cautious or masculine women. Similarly guys at college can meet lots of women but aren’t a very appealing catch as they don’t make any money (women in their 20s now make more money than men).

Conversely, men in rural areas may have jobs but face a serious dearth of females since most single women flock to big cities for work (either because of their career choices, or simply because they just don’t like the rural lifestyle).

Meanwhile in surburban areas there are a lot of young working class women, but many of them are single mothers.

A conceptual clarification is in order. My reading of the post was the function behind female deference varying around the world was related to of sexual selection of women. Calling that ‘metaphysical’ sounds negative, however Fred’s allows that black African are different, so he wasn’t saying that it was unscientific to say races vary in behaviour, merely incorrect in some detail. The science of biology is quite compatible with the idea of selection pressures producing adaptations with the purpose of finding a mate. The purpose of finding a mate exists in the system, so it is in that sense a higher level or metaphysical explanation of what is going on.

… higher IQ girls internalise their cultural environment, and it tells them that blacks are just men with a different coloured skin rather than men selected for polygyny, in which the ability to attract women is vital but a proclivity for forming lasting emotional attachment to a particular woman is maladaptive. Euro girls think blacks as boyfriends are going to be a lot more clingy that they actually turn out to be.

In countries like Germany brighter girls get more anti-racist education and take it more seriously. Basically, the high quality girls in European society are more indoctrinated to be open to a black male as a sexual partner. …

Excellent comment Sean.

I’ll add–while it varies individually–i don’t actually think white girls on average think black men are very attractive–visually. (I’ve heard several young women say just the opposite.)

I think the attraction is precisely that black men are “selected for polygyny” and more aggressively male, have more “game”.
In an era when
a) women are told they don’t have to depend on a man, have a welfare state and bogus make work job opportunities (i.e. don’t feel the need to pick a suitable provider) and
b) white men are bad-mouthed for being male, coached to be more compliant and feminine
this quality of aggressive maleness, of “game” is appealing to many women. And *especially* because they are propagandized that blacks are cool and sticking with their own kind is racist.

And i think these tendencies are no doubt worse in Europe where the PC is intense and the

“folk wisdom understanding of what blacks are like”

essentially missing.

It’s a disaster. White men need to stand up and let white women know what’s acceptable for them to still be considered acceptable romantic\mating prospects. Otherwise white civilization is headed into the sewer. It took many thousands of years to create the white genome that is capable of producing the pleasant prosperous societies we have. It must be defended … or those societies are gone.

I don’t believe FR is using it as an insult, and I am certainly not. I also don’t use the word “Scientific” to insult people engaging in actual metaphysical inquiry. But, I might use it to critique their mixing of domains.

Yeah, as an insult.

“Seeing purpose in women of reproductive age exhibiting deference to men is metaphysical, yes.”
No, it’s not.
“In Athens, he had been taught by Plato to seek truth in the intangible realm of ideas. Rejecting his teacher’s metaphysics…”
Exactly.
Doesn’t mean sciency things aren’t objectively true, but conflating the word “metaphysics” with scientific truths is an abuse of language.
In any case, FR appears to have been using the word in the same way I do, and NOT the way you do.

Sub Saharan Africans are not physically unattractive to white women, if you control for IQ. Black are more extroverted and I think the evidence is quite clear on that. Re the type of girls in countries like Germany who go for blacks, I think you are forgetting that the higher IQ girls internalise their cultural environment, and it tells them that blacks are just men with a different coloured skin rather than men selected for polygyny, in which the ability to attract women is vital but a proclivity for forming lasting emotional attachment to a particular woman is maladaptive. Euro girls think blacks as boyfriends are going to be a lot more clingy that they actually turn out to be.

In countries like Germany brighter girls get more anti-racist education and take it more seriously. Basically, the high quality girls in European society are more indoctrinated to be open to a black male as a sexual partner. Education is a form of indoctrination and in countries where the the most educated young women don’t have society’s cautious attitude to blacks to acquire a folk wisdom understanding of what blacks are like, the girls only find out through the bitter experience of being used and dumped.

http://www.armandmarieleroi.com/?p=1074
In the Eastern Aegean lies an island. It has silver olive groves, green marshes and forested hills. In the spring, migrating birds fill its skies and flowers fill its meadows. And there is a lagoon, clear and calm, that cuts the island nearly in two. Science was born on its shores.In 345 BC, Aristotle arrived on Lesbos. He was young and newly married. In Athens, he had been taught by Plato to seek truth in the intangible realm of ideas. Rejecting his teacher’s metaphysics, Aristotle began to study nature. He recorded the salaciousness of sparrows, the sexual incontinence of girls, the stomachs of snails, the sensitivity of sponges, the sounds of cicadas and the structure of the human heart. And then he explained them all. He founded the Science of Life.

The Lagoon is the wondrous story of how one man began the greatest of all human endeavours; how, for centuries, his work was celebrated and how, in the Scientific Revolution, it was condemned so that today he is remembered as a philosopher, but forgotten as a scientist. Yet his science was beautiful and vast.

In this luminous book, acclaimed biologist Armand Marie Leroi goes to Lesbos to see the creatures that Aristotle knew and loved. He recovers Aristotle’s science and explores his inspired theories – as well as the things that he got wildly wrong. Modern science still bears Aristotle’s stamp. Even now he shows us how to discover new worlds

For crucial part of BBC documentary with Leroi explaining Aristotle’s achievement, see here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology Teleology is a reason or explanation for something in function of its end, purpose or goal.[1] For example, a teleological explanation of why forks have prongs is that this design helps humans eat certain foods; stabbing food to help humans eat is what forks are for. It is derived from two Greek words: telos (end, goal, purpose) and logos (reason, explanation).

A purpose that is imposed by a human use, such as that of a fork, is called extrinsic.[2] Natural teleology contends that natural entities have intrinsic purposes, irrespective of human use or opinion. For instance, Aristotle claimed that an acorn’s intrinsic telos is to become a fully grown oak tree. […] ]Since the Novum Organum of Francis Bacon, teleological explanations in science tend to be deliberately avoided in favor of focus on material and efficient explanations. Final and formal causation came to be viewed as false or too subjective[…] In contrast, teleological based “grand narratives” are eschewed by the postmodern attitude[11] and teleology may be viewed as reductive, exclusionary and harmful to those whose stories are diminished or overlooked.[12]

Against this postmodern position, Alasdair MacIntyre has argued that a narrative understanding of oneself, of one’s capacity as an independent reasoner, one’s dependence on others and on the social practices and traditions in which one participates, all tend towards an ultimate good of liberation. Social practices may themselves be understood as teleologically oriented to internal goods, for example practices of philosophical and scientific inquiry are teleologically ordered to the elaboration of a true understanding of their objects. MacIntyre’s book After Virtue famously dismissed the naturalistic teleology of Aristotle’s ‘metaphysical biology’, but he has cautiously moved from that book’s account of a sociological teleology toward an exploration of what remains valid in a more traditional teleological naturalism

Seeing purpose in women of reproductive age exhibiting deference to men is metaphysical, yes. But it is not subjective or ethereal, it’s about the dirt, worms, and reproducing mammals’ genes being selected to cope with pressures that vary geographically.

Culture can adapt people faster than genetics admittedly, maybe even better inasmuch as Mexican women are perhaps more deferential when brought up in Mexican culture. But that is perhaps an argument for people not giving up their traditional culture, which (metaphysically speaking) is there for a reason.

I’m surprised that no one has even mentioned humour. Certain kinds of humourous talk may be typical of unpretentious ladies’ (“girls’”) lunches but plenty of heterosexual matings from one night to permanent are facilitated by making the other laugh.

Oh, now, I see. You don’t know what metaphysical means.

I highly doubt that.

I don´t know about the situation other countries, but in Germany also high IQ women seem prefer males of westafrican ancestry over males with other ancestry

The metaphysic, or bio-logic if you prefer, comes in when we say, as seems indubitable, that the purpose of a girl spending 3 hours to get ready for a night out and trying a dozen different tops on is reproduction. I don’t know if European women take more care over their preparation for a night out when culture is held constant, and I’m still waiting to be told if Mexican women brought up in US culture are less deferential to men than Anglo women brought up in that same culture. Metaphysics is that which must always be true.

If deference to males in European women is due to something hereditary, the extremely equalitarian modern culture’s failure to produce a generation of forthright women will be seem as evidence of a male chauvinist pig miasma/glass ceiling that is repressing European women.

But the non European women brought up in Western permissive culture will not have the same genetic tendency to deference, and feminists will be entranced by more women ‘like Somali born Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Iraqi born Swedish politician Esabelle Dingizian, british MP ‘Naz’ Shah, or the half Iranian German politician Sahra Wagenknecht. Confident women like these and Nina Burleigh (half Iraqi) will become extremely prominent in public life in the future.

The failure of young European women to behave as the intelligentsia think they should will create the impression among HBD sceptics that there is a deadening white male influence damaging girls’ self esteem. We will see much more of groups like the Swedish feminists party, which did well in recent elections;-

http://feministisktinitiativ.se/eu-valsplattformen/the-tide-is-high-replace-the-racists-with-feminists/

The elections to the European Parliament need to be seen in light of the mobilization of parties with racist, nazi and fascist ideologies around Europe. Several of those parties are already represented in the European Parliament and there is a significant risk that this group will continue to grow. More action is needed to counter structural discrimination. If this does not happen, racist and conservative forces will gain more ground. We need to raise the level of ambition in the struggle for democracy and human rights for all. Feminist parties are forming across Europe and our long-term goal is to work together for the establishment of a feminist political group.

Feministiskt Initiativ is contesting the EP elections as an alternative for everyone who wants to see a different political trajectory. Our political platform is built on equality, human rights and freedom from all forms of discrimination. We want to reallocate resources by investing in welfare, sustainability, accessibility and human security.

We challenge the image of Sweden and Europe as the paradise of gender equality. This is a false image that diminishes the existing problems and stands in the way of genuine change. It is an image that is used by nationalists wanting to portray women’s oppression as a foreign problem that originates in other parts of the world. Women’s rights are thus hijacked in racist rhetoric that aims to close borders. At the same time, nationalist and racist parties are the ones peddling the most misogynistic policies. Culture is in focus for these parties, described as something that is nationally homogenous, and is used to construct boundaries between people. […]

um, no.
I think that Fred’s point that in some cases, behaviors change too rapidly to be scientifically shown to be genetic changes. Genetic metaphysicians say all change is genetic, regardless of other information, and proceed from there. In the same way that spiritual metaphysicians ascribe all causes to the unseen. Do you see the difference?
I certainly agree that our biology effects many things.
Also, I don’t really care if it is outdated. And, it wasn’t an insult, but an accurate description of the phenomenon.

I don’t know how I would prove it, and yet to my admittedly superficial gaze blacks do not seem to behave like other peoples of the same latitudes.

When they have the same upbringing you can tell if it was the culture. US Blacks seem to behave not a little differently in modern permissive culture than they did 80 years ago. The Chinese in the US do too well for their behaviour to be anything but substantially hard-wired. The model minority is losing patience.

To this lay observer, deference seems proportional to dependence, and changes too rapidly to be genetic. In 1930, women in America needed a husband to live decently, so they were deferential and agreeable, this being a large part of femininity. Now they can live without men and do not fear their strength, so they are more combative and hostile. Thus feminism. Thus the strong tendency of American men to complain of the lack of feminine women in the US and their attraction to Thais, Mexicans, Viets, and other women of the tropical world where deference is the norm. That is, the north-south cline seems to be deference to the south, lack of it to the north.

If they are genetically no more argumentative with men than Anglo women, Mexican women when brought up in the US would no more or less deferential to men . Is that true, or are ethnic Mexican women brought up in US culture more argumentative than Anglo women? If Mexican women brought up in the US are more argumentative around men than Anglo women then it is probably innate to Latinas to be non-deferential to men. The culture in Mexico could school them to be other than they are naturally.

I have read there is a downward assimilation trend among Mexican immigrants to the US on a variety of indices, which become increasingly worse with succeeding generations brought up in US culture. That rather suggests that Mexican traditional culture is required to do what is it is not necessary for US culture to do because the adaptive behaviour is hard wired in Anglos In Africa the culture is surely the opposite to the genetic tendency, Nigerian culture is for great deference from wives.

I don’t think it is true that the mass of women were in fear of being without a man, working women didn’t, they were in a variety of jobs such as servants. Women can’t always get another man but leaving wives was once not socially accepted. The case in which women were constrained to be deferential was the world of Jane Austen. Her novels portray the quandary of women who to remain in their leisured class must marry a wealthy man. Austen’s popularity may have been that the stories feature the world the readers wanted to live in; one where ladies who are impertinent and scoff at suitors pretensions (Elizabeth Bennet) or turn down a marriage proposal from a wealthy suitor (Fanny Price), yet end up with a catch anyway.

It might be useful to see if beauty/sex appeal factors into this. Most girls are not great beauties and this might affect their ‘self esteem’ as much as anything else. OTOH a very attractive 16 year old girl knows she is desirable and has no need to be assertive, she has to fight off the attention of males.

This, I must say, is one of the best comments from Priss.

What I’d like to add on is, in real life, in mating game, one of the traits women look for is “social status”. It is either they want (1) a finished product or (2) a product that will become the product of the year in their mating market.

No women will stoop down to a guy with a lower socio-economic status. They will flock if those guys from lower strata become Alpha during their mating time. But they will not actively look out for a guy from lower strata with potential to become their future wives. That’s nature.

We can remove the “socio-economic status” if they’re looking for one night hookup. There are tons of movies with women from higher strata picking guys from lower strata solely due to their “Manliness” and “Alpha” behavior in all other countries, not only in Hollywood. Those movies cater to the needs of men in local populations to aim higher in their lives and they can achieve gorgeous, ultra high, fine ladies in their lives.

As time moves on, and socio-economic status changes over time, the landscape of movies story also changes.

“But in the end they use this power and freedom to arrange a situation in which they pair with subsaharan African or muslim males, thus they put themselves back into an situation where the show deference etc.”

No they don’t!

At least not the desirable higher IQ females.

You think we are autonomous moral agents, and our biological nature as mammals does does not affect our purposeful behavior? ‘Doing metaphysics’ is in any case a very outdated insult .

Cold weather requires cooperation – cooperation develops the division of labor and intellectual specialization – smart males thrive in that environment. That in a nutshell, is the story of Western culture.

Black males living in the tropics had a different success selection modal – theirs was a cultural environment of physical and verbal confrontation, with far less family responsibilities – thus giving woman more cultural power. This is the problem with blacks in America – they are still operating and living as a tropical society in a cold culture. To gain success, they have to adapt.

Environment dictates culture – which in turn pushes biological selection.

“a metaphysical quality to these discussions, which resemble debates between economists more than science”

To be fair supposedly hard sciences like physics fall into metaphysics all the time. How else to explain the nonsense that is string theory and the mess particle physics has become. (The “God particle”? Seriously?) I don’t know what kind of science we should be sticking to, anyway. Evolutionary biology is harder than economics, surely, but not all that hard. Certainly internet discussions of it don’t stay on some lofty plain high above the dregs of economics.

The subject seems to me to stray into various fields on its own, for instance sociology, history, politics, etc. What would constitute an un-metaphysical discussion? I have no idea.

“It seems to me, as one who has lived widely abroad, that there are in a sense only two races, blacks and everybody else. ”

Everything is interpretation. When I first looked at haplogroups, the transition from African to Asian stood out to me. But then when I started reading gene-blogs it became apparent that that interpretation was false. But what exactly did happen between C and F? And between L and M. And why did it happen somewhere on the coast of South Asia, before going inland? And why are Europeans and others called Cauc-Asians?

female deference can be seen all over the animal kingdom…. female mammals are mounted…and thus submissiveness is often required.

Fred,
I greatly appreciate your willingness to call foul when these HBD arguments do get a metaphysical quality to them. I do think they are on to something, but they need to learn to stop arguing like it is metaphysic.

I’ve always suspected that the decline of female self-esteem in adsolescence could at least in part be explained by the sex differences in physical development during that period. Children revel in physical play and interaction. Suddeenly in adolescence the boys become bigger and much stronger and more agile. Meanwhile girls put on fat instead of muscle, develop floppy breasts, big hips and asses, and even more pronounced knockknees than in childhood. The boys they once beat up have suddenly become capable of turning them into involuntary sex objects. To top it all off they’re suddeenly constrained by hormonal fluctuations that for many make one week every month or so a living hell. The same hormones turn female society of competitors for male favor just as boys are forming the kind of male-bonding groups that persist through adulthood. No wonder girls become depressed.

female deference is an obstacle to growing the supply of workers in america.

Big Business wants women to compete against men in the labor supply. That lowers wages and increases the sales of consumer goods.

But women need to be psychologically prepped and programmed to be assertive.

That is why the media, hollywood, govt, academia etc all push feminism.

Feminism is a tool of Capital to increase the supply of labor, thus depressing wages, increasing sales and increasing corporate profits.

You feed feminism into the minds of young white men and women in school, and after a few years of that, the natural and instinctive female deference has been psychologically overcome, and both young men and young women seek women as fit and proper to compete against males in the workplace.

Biology has thus been overcome in the name of increased corporate profits.

“But other work has noted that Black girls maintain their self-esteem and their classroom “voice” into adolescence despite the fact that they may feel neglected in education”
his quote from the Morris paper from 2007 shows a typical phenomena for modern social sciences. Formal institutions get overrated regarding their importance while informal institutions get neglected.
In the quote it is implied that educational success in terms of grades etc. could have a big impact on the self esteem of youths.
Meanwhile in reality I would say out of the total experience of “school” for youths grades are jut one minor factor. More important is the experience of physical differences, especially physical strength differences, aggression and surrender in everyday social interactions., even the olfactory experience.

yes, western white women are very powerful today, due to the welfare state, female (pseudo) work participation etc. But in the end they use this power and freedom to arrange a situation in which they pair with subsaharan African or muslim males, thus they put themselves back into an situation where the show deference etc.

Women are more manipulative. Perhaps their regardful behavior is an opening ploy for manipulation.

I certainly don’t take interest in bossy women.

Modern white Western women are becoming more masculine and more African-like. The high Openness whites of Western Europe have taken Feminism further than any other culture, and the women have adopted positions of power moreso in this society than any other. In many ways, high Openness whites enjoy adopting the lifestyle patterns of pre-civilized people, for whatever reason. On the flip side, Asian women remain (relatively) demure and deferential.

Great comment.

The decline of cities like Detroit, Memphis and Birmingham as their populations have become majority African-American has often been ascribed to differences between African and Caucasian IQs and to differences in frequencies of MAOA alleles. Another difference of possible causal significance is the level of deference shown by females to males. African-American females are far less easy-going and less likely to make the kind of compromises that would be necessary to maintain a nuclear family. One can argue that this racial difference is really the critical one, and that IQ and MAOA alleles would not be civilizationally crippling if there were intact families. The collective behavior of the Meztizo immigrants appears to support this line of argument, as their women are more deferential and their families are stronger.

Very interesting blog.

Mr. Frost wins! Finally I come across the crux of the matter as it seems to me stated correctly. Though I hasten to add, the conclusion I’ll refer to appears by my reading only to be implied, and if I’m jumping to that conclusion then probably the error is mine, an error that may or may not suggest there’s room on the point to tighten the text.

Female deference should therefore vary within our species. In particular, it should correlate with the degree of paternal investment in offspring and, relatedly, the intensity of female-female competition for mates. This doesn’t mean that women are actually more deferential in societies where men are providers. It simply means that they create an impression of deference, while continuing to do much of the real decision-making.

That men compete and women pick seems to be taken for granted by human nature realists universally. But it seems impossible to describe in a logical way how it happens that women secure the power to decide on the man by displaying their deference; when women are dependant on men they make them invest more by deferring to them; we are supposed to imagine that men compete to win the deferential woman, whose pivotal act of deference is consenting to marry the one she desires. None of these formulations do a justice, though I don’t know how to be more generous.

Obviously, a human relationship cannot actually be a paradox. So the paradox is reduced to the self-deception of men and the feminine wiles of women: “This doesn’t mean that women are actually more deferential in societies where men are providers. It simply means that they create an impression of deference, while continuing to do much of the real decision-making.” However, there is a way to escape the paradox without imputing such motives that can only be asserted, and that explicates the matter more elegantly as well.

“Female deference correlates with the intensity of female-female competition for mates.” To wit, the men are not competing for the sincerely deferential woman, the sincerely deferential women are competing for them, and they are the established men of means who are given providers, the alphas. Properly speaking, these men pick the woman they want to marry, and would be proposing marriage to like an offer more than an ask. These are not the women who generally manipulate their self-deceiving husbands (that is, until they hit menopause) because he might only be as loyal as she deserves.

Basically, the rest of the women get married to the variable betas, whose level of self-deception seems to be more or less, but generally not on account of any false-mask of deference the woman ever wore. Seems to me universally true that women find it excruciatingly irksome and often impossible to feign a deferential respect to men they are quite not sure about. Same as it always was that way, so that the women who used to marry the men they never much engaged in talk are today the women who don’t talk to they men the don’t marry.

Hence the crux of the matter: female deference differs within society, because which sex competes for which differs depending on male status. The confusion this refutes is not just that males only ever compete for mates, but the very current and crude concept being shoved around by these pick-up artists of artifice, who confect some historical precedent for how they go about attracting a mate. By affecting the demeanor of an alpha they claim to make the woman sincerely deferential. Except the trick requires outcompeting the field in very small and subtle ways, so that it’s truer to say the woman chooses to believe the PUA has won than to say the PUA chooses the one he wants. Thus they strain a basically clear conception between which sex competes for which, and distract from their conceptual straining by insisting that getting laid makes them alphas. Well, I guess there is a whole world waiting to see if these guys can actually become what they claim to have attained, and get a prize to give them marriage. Which is to say, no one in the world could possibly believe the self-delusions of men who admit their category of deceptions so deliberately.

There seems to be a kind of paradox here.

What seems like lack of self-esteem is really driven by self-esteem.
And what looks like deference is really a demand for preference, i.e. demand to be noticed, admired, and loved.

It’s like how a cat acts. It acts so weak, mews, makes baby-like sounds, purrs, and etc. It seems lacking in self-esteem as it acts so gentle before the master, but it is actually working on the master’s emotions to be the center of attention and affection. It is partly an act, even if unwitting on the cat’s part. The cat is saying, ‘drop everything and show me all the love in the world, make me the center of your affection.’

When women are young, they are sort of nervous and unsure cuz they’re just coming into maturity.
But they are also feeling very narcissistic. Every young woman wants to be seen and admired as ‘hot stuff’. Her self-esteem is tied to how much men admire her. And she knows or intuitively senses that men are attracted to women who are feminine, who have the soft touch, and etc. Some men may prefer more exciting women, but even they have to have some feminine touch.
So, even though it may look like deference on the outside, it is a kind of trick to make the men feel their share of deference to her by alluring them to her looks and feminine guile.
Paradoxically, a woman gains power over a man by making herself come across as powerless and damsel-like. By acting soft, she makes herself to appealing to him, and the guy becomes smitten with her gentle feminine qualities. He comes under her spell.

Mr. Frost,

Congratulations on another excellent article. Two passages seem to have errors (or I’m missing something, which is always a possibility):

(1) “female deference should be stronger where paternal investment is lower” Actually, the text seems to imply just the opposite, i.e., “female deference should be stronger where paternal investment is higher” (e.g., in Northern Europe)

(2) “social interactions were less infrequent between husband and wife”. Again, the text seems to imply just the opposite, i.e., “social interactions were more infrequent (in Ghana) between husband and wife (than in Europe)

Cheers,