The Pseudo-Science of Female Submission
Why Blithering Genius’ “What if Women Evolved to Be Owned?” is Nothing but Misogyny Masquerading as Rational Inquiry
Blithering Genius’ article, “What if Women Evolved to Be Owned?” is a textbook example of pseudo-intellectualism in service of reactionary ideology. It’s a crude attempt to use evolutionary biology as a fig leaf for male dominance, dressed up in the language of rational debate but devoid of actual scientific credibility.
At its core, the piece recycles tired, long-debunked ideas about hierarchy, control, and the supposed “natural order” of gender roles. But the real tell is how desperately it leans on manipulative language, rhetorical sleight-of-hand, and selective reasoning—all classic tactics of those trying to smuggle regressive ideas under the guise of “rational discussion.”
Let’s take a closer look at just how shaky this argument really is.
The Deliberate Distortion of Freedom
The article opens with what seems like an innocuous observation:
“Our culture assumes that freedom is generally good, and that people should be free to pursue their own desires, unless that pursuit conflicts with the freedom of others.”
That might sound reasonable enough. After all, history shows that societies with greater individual freedoms tend to be more prosperous, stable, and innovative. Authoritarian regimes, by contrast, breed stagnation, fear, and oppression.
But within just a few sentences, the author begins laying the groundwork for a bait-and-switch. He argues that freedom is actually a problem because it assumes people always know what is best for them.
This is a strawman argument. No serious proponent of freedom believes that people always make optimal choices. That’s precisely why societies regulate activities like gambling, drugs, and unsafe working conditions while still upholding personal autonomy. The alternative—total social control—has been tried many times throughout history, always with disastrous results.
The real trick here is how this logic is later applied to gender roles. By first calling into question human judgment in general, the author sets up an argument for why women, in particular, cannot be trusted with autonomy.
Twisting Evolution to Serve an Agenda
Blithering Genius then attempts to ground his argument in evolutionary theory:
“I will consider the possibility that women evolved to be owned/dominated by men.”
This statement alone reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works. Evolution does not design species for specific social roles. There is no predetermined biological mandate that dictates women must be owned by men any more than there is one that dictates kings must rule over peasants.
Traits persist when they contribute to survival and reproduction. Human social structures have always been fluid, shaped by environmental, economic, and cultural forces as much as by biology. The idea that men “owning” women is some kind of hardwired evolutionary constant ignores the overwhelming historical evidence of female agency, leadership, and resistance to male dominance across cultures.
But the most damning flaw in this argument is that it’s purely circular:
The author assumes male ownership of women was “natural.”
Then claims women evolved to fit this structure.
Then concludes that male ownership of women must be natural.
This is not science. It’s ideology dressed up as analysis.
The “Both Own Each Other” Deflection
Perhaps sensing that outright calling women “property” would provoke backlash, the author throws in a half-hearted rhetorical shield:
“In a sense, the husband and wife owned each other. But this ownership was not symmetrical, because men and women are different.”
This is a transparent attempt to soften an otherwise indefensible argument. The phrase “both own each other” is not a serious assertion—it’s a damage-control mechanism designed to blunt criticism.
You will never hear these people begin their argument by saying, “Women own men.” No, they always start by asserting male ownership of women and only tack on the “both own each other” line when challenged. It’s a linguistic sleight-of-hand meant to make oppression sound reciprocal when, in reality, the claim is entirely one-directional.
And of course, the author quickly drops the pretense of mutuality:
“A woman needed the protection of a man to survive, so she was the de facto property of some protector: initially her father, and later her husband.”
The mask slips.
This is indistinguishable from historical justifications for slavery—that because a group was “dependent” on another for survival, they must be owned. It’s the same moral abdication that has been used to justify everything from serfdom to racial oppression: the idea that because a system existed in the past, it must be natural and should continue.
But here’s the problem: history is full of things that were once widespread but are no longer considered acceptable. Infanticide was once common. So were public executions, debtors’ prisons, and trial by ordeal. Would the author argue that we should return to those systems simply because they were once the norm?
The cherry-picking here is deliberate. The goal is not to explore history—it’s to manufacture a justification for continued female subjugation.
“The State Owns Women”—A Masterclass in Manipulative Language
If the author’s intent wasn’t already obvious, he spells it out with this claim:
“Today, the state has replaced both the father and the husband as the ‘owner’ of women. The state is the default protector and provider. The state gives women sexual freedom.”
This is pure manipulation, designed to reframe basic human rights as a form of ownership.
In reality:
Laws do not “own” people. They protect them.
The state does not “give” women freedom. It removes restrictions that were previously imposed on them.
Men rely on the state just as much as women do. By this logic, men are also “owned” by police, the military, and public infrastructure.
The entire framing is a transparent attempt to make female autonomy sound sinister, when in fact, it is nothing more than the extension of the same legal rights men already enjoy.
The Fascist Core of This Argument
Finally, the article reveals its deepest authoritarian impulse:
“The problem with liberation is that we aren’t adapted to it. We have not been pulled from our natural environment and stuck in a cage, like a zoo animal. It is the opposite. We have been taken out of our natural cage and released into the ‘wild’ of modern civilization, with all of its freedoms.”
This is textbook fascist rhetoric—the belief that freedom is inherently dangerous and that humans must be controlled for their own good.
This argument is not just about gender. It is part of a broader reactionary worldview that views modernity itself as a mistake.
But history tells a different story. Societies that embraced freedom and equality flourished. Those that clung to rigid hierarchies stagnated and collapsed.
And that’s the real reason arguments like this always fail in the long run. They are not based on truth, logic, or science—they are based on fear of progress.
Blithering Genius’ article isn’t just wrong. It’s dangerous. And it deserves to be called out for what it is.
Part two of my criticism can be read here:
The Red-Pill Delusion About Women
Previously I tackled the question of whether women have evolved to be owned. It is a rather absurd claim, but it is implied in a lot of manosphere and christian conservative rhetoric, so it should not be ignored.
Related
While looking at writing on this topic I came across some other article worth reading.
Did Men Own Women? — Linda Scott writes about how depressing and normalized the treatment of women as property has been through history.
The first, and most important point, is to read something before responding to it.
At the end of my essay, I say:
"I am not blaming women, or anyone else, for the current problems with human sexuality. I am not a reactionary. I don’t want to return to a premodern way of life. I want modern civilization to succeed. I am not a traditionalist. We can’t solve the problems of modern civilization by restoring traditional religion and morality. Modern problems require new solutions."
So, I am not a reactionary. You are arguing against an imaginary opponent that you made up, so that you can prance around on your moral high horse. It's so tedious and boring. There's nothing intellectual about what you are doing. You're just creating noise.
You start by poisoning the well, telling your readers what I believe, despite not even having read the post. You use manipulative rhetoric to deceive your readers, telling them that I use deceptive rhetoric, so that you can impose your own interpretation on it.
You say "He argues that freedom is actually a problem because it assumes people always know what is best for them."
That is a lie. What I said was:
[begin quote]
Our culture assumes that freedom is generally good, and that people should be free to pursue their own desires, unless that pursuit conflicts with the freedom of others. This view is so pervasive that most people would struggle to understand a critique of it. However, it is based on dubious assumptions.
One of those assumptions is that people know what is good for them. This assumption is linked to hedonism. If pleasure and pain are the ultimate good and bad, then you have direct awareness of what is good and bad for you. You could be mistaken about the consequences of your actions, but not about what is intrinsically good or bad.
[end quote]
The assumption is not that people always know what is good for them, but that people *generally* know what is good for them. That is a core assumption of liberalism.
You say:
"That’s precisely why societies regulate activities like gambling, drugs, and unsafe working conditions while still upholding personal autonomy. The alternative—total social control—has been tried many times throughout history, always with disastrous results."
Obviously, those regulations do limit personal autonomy. So, you accept the principle that society should limit personal autonomy in certain ways, to protect people from themselves. For example, a new drug might be hard for most people to resist, so society should control it.
The point about total social control is irrelevant to the essay. In fact, it is irrelevant to anything, because no society has ever had total social control over individuals.
You say:
"The real trick here is how this logic is later applied to gender roles. By first calling into question human judgment in general, the author sets up an argument for why women, in particular, cannot be trusted with autonomy."
I never said that women, in particular, cannot be trusted with autonomy. That is not the point of the essay. You projected that onto it, because that's the position that you want to argue against. That's just more dishonesty.
You quoted me saying "I will consider the possibility that women evolved to be owned/dominated by men", however, you omitted the end of the sentence.
What I said:
"I will consider the possibility that women evolved to be owned/dominated by men, and cannot function in the modern environment of sexual freedom."
You say:
"This statement alone reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works. Evolution does not design species for specific social roles. There is no any more than there is one that dictates kings must rule over peasants."
Sorry, but you are the one who is completely ignorant of evolutionary biology and psychology. First, sex roles are not social, they are sexual, or in other words, interpersonal. Evolution does create sex roles. In almost every sexually-reproducing species, males and females are different, and in complex organisms, they have different evolved patterns of behavior. I explained how the difference in reproductive strategies leads to different emotions and behaviors in men and women. This is well understood in evolutionary psychology.
Did I say that there was a "predetermined biological mandate that dictates women must be owned by men". No, that's a strawman. Read what I actually wrote.
I'm not going to waste my time going through the whole thing. That should be enough to let your readers know how dishonest you are.