In this 2 part series, Jan Deichmohle adds her biosocial perspective to the ongoing nature/nurture conversation.
This article shows that the male sex is biologically dominant. Sexual selection, procreation and a bias in perception of the sexes contribute to this dominance. Male dominance has been increased by all the “masculist waves.” The balance of society which had once unconsciously favoured men throughout history while also valuing women has been completely overthrown.
Male choice being a determinant factor in the evolutionary cycle has severe consequences. It can create new species, and determine the course of evolution. It creates and forms the differences between the sexes1, as well as social structures like the family and culture. Charles Darwin and the Darwinian theory of evolution (circa 1858) laid the foundation of our understanding of natural selection and sexual selection. Recent studies on the subject have underscored its relevance and importance. See, for instance, Volume 1 “Culture and Sex2.”
“… sexual selection deals with variations between individuals, female and male, of the same species”
(Erika Lorraine Milam, “Looking for a Few Good Females, Male Choice” in Evolutionary Biology, pub 2010, p. 13)
The influence of biological male choice can push species into biological and cultural dead ends. These evolutionary tiger traps can lead to specie extinction. For example, one specie of deer in the “Ice Age” was compelled to grow ever larger antlers in order to gain access to males. Eventually the species was unable to cope with the changes in the environment and consequently died out.3
“To sum up, the intensity of sexual selection in larger species in deer family put them in risk of extinction”
(Saloume Bazyan, Sexual selection and extinction in deer, Uppsala Universitet, 2013)
‘Sexual selection’ is a huge and complex subject so in this paper the reader is referred to Annex A where it is dealt with in greater detail.
Sexual selection and the certainty of fatherhood give males easier access to procreation and make the male sex biologically dominant. Because children are the future, they get special protection and perception at an instinctive level, which then extends to males, who can be fathers. An innately favourable perception of men is the result. (For a discussion of male dominance in more detail and more evidence see Volume 1, “Kultur und Geschlecht”, English: “Culture and Sex”)
“This female-polarised/male-centering pattern is behind why females are regarded as advantaged and males disadvantaged… A pervasive misperception to the detriment of females would be expected to stem from the need to ‘police’ (to use the term as employed in biology) females to ensure they do not try to subvert the extent of sexual access they have by virtue of their ranking”
(The Origin of the Sexual Divide in the Genetic Filter Function: Female Disadvantage and Why It Is not Perceived, Steve Moxon, NEW FEMALE STUDIES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ~ ISSN 1839-7816 ~ VOL. 1, ISSUE 3, 2012, PP. 96-124, © 2012 AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF FEMALE HEALTH AND STUDIES.)
Females are regarded with a bias which becomes more prominent the lower her rank, and the less they should procreate because of their low rank.4 Fathers breast feeding babies have a direct special bond with the child and influence its mental development. All of this adds to the biological dominance of men. Let us look at the consequences.
In the animal-human continuum inter-sexual selection by the male of the specie can exclude the female from a fulfilled and contented life. The drives of procreation and the survival of genes are an inherent biological imperative. It has been strikingly laid bare that this holds among our own species – human beings.
Whatever the dreams or lifetime ambitions of a woman might be – be it a specific beloved man, establishing a world based on love and then to live within it, or a world of social and free love between the sexes – whatever that life’s dream may have been, it is often made impossible and their aspiration become destroyed by male choice, based on the power of sexual selection, which extends ever deeper into the realm of social life.
The female of almost all species must carry by far the greater burden of evolution. It is not the case that both men and women carry “fit” or “attractive” genes to procreate, resulting in only the “fit” or “attractive” genes prospering and surviving. No, virtually all fertile males procreate regardless of whether or not they carry “fit” or “attractive” genes; whereas only a proportion of females with genes regarded as attractive may procreate. A proportion of females pass the filtering process of sexual selection by carrying “attractive” genes. Most men who themselves carry “less-liked” or unattractive genes nevertheless still exclude women having the same less unattractive gene from procreation. Barred from access to a fulfilled love life, these women have their dreams of life destroyed by the discriminating choices made.
The “unattractive” genes however do not disappear quickly. “Unattractive” genes can be passed from a man to a child down a long chain of generations. However, whenever the “unattractive” gene is passed to his daughter, she may well be discriminated against later in life, whereas if the “unattractive” gene is passed to a son, he will later in life most likely be able to still procreate. Were both men and women to face the same strict sexual selection rules, then those less unattractive genes would virtually disappear after one generation, speeding up evolution considerably. Or else, if neither of them would face sexual selection, then natural selection would steer a course towards a better adaption to the environment. In the current situation, the pressure to develop “attractive” genes may actually be higher than the pressure to develop “fit” genes.
Sobering as these statements are, they are nonetheless scientific facts, proven by genetic research.
“… The distribution of women’s mate value has a greater variance and more of a positive skew than the corresponding distribution for men. Males limit the reproductive success of females, and women compete with other women for access to men. ..Women have evolved to act as ‘filters’ for genetic material (Atmar 1991, Moxon 2008). ..By stretching women out in a dominance hierarchy, genetic material that enhances the lineage is retained, whilst deleterious genetic material is eliminated from the lineage. ..There is no dominance relationship (or competition) between women and men.”
Evolution by Martin Sewell, 31 March 2014, University of Cambridge
Examination of the graph5 below reveals that over the last 60,000 years, between four and five times as many men than women have procreated and left their genes within the human gene pool. We can safely assume, that the vast majority of men have procreated, whereas, at most, one woman in four or five has procreated.
This is consistent with the biological fact of male choice, as stated by Darwin and confirmed by recent evolutionary biology. It is also consistent with masculist claims that men, given they have the choice, will select only 20 percent of women, while not wanting the other 80 percent. (see Volume 1 “Culture and Sex,” „Kultur und Geschlecht”)
An exception may have been the most recent few millennia, where human culture and what we now take to be “traditional” monogamous marriage may have resulted in a short period of less imbalance, while the underlying balance nevertheless still favoured men. There have been times of a huge imbalance, for instance, 8,000 years ago, when 17 times as many men procreated as women (see graphs below).
Figure 1: World reproductive population (in 000s) over the millenia
Left: Female population Right: Male population
Four to five times as many men than women reproduced during the 60,000 years covered by the above graphs. The vertical (or Y) axis measures reproductive population in thousands, and the horizontal (or X) axis measures changes over thousands of years. NB. Please note: the vertical scale on the left differs from that on
the right. Source: Monika Karmin et al. / Genome Research, Francie Deep, Mar 17, 2015, “8,000 Years Ago, 17 Men Reproduced for Every One Woman”
Culture never “discriminated against men;” instead it was necessary for measures to be taken to reduce the degree of inhuman discrimination against women. That there was no oppression of men, but always an oppression of most women, has since been proven by science. Genetics is able to trace these specific facts back for more than 60,000 years, delivering exact proofs, while the masculist view is based on subjective perceptions, partisanship and myths, according to their own sources (see Volume 2 of “The Two Sexes”). Martin van Creveld has researched all the years of human history that can be covered in “The Privileged Sex.” The result was that men were always privileged.
In every culture throughout history men have been privileged and yet it was women who had to carry the burden to provide for the privileged status of men. Women were put into dangerous situations, including fighting for the protection of others and undertaking dangerous jobs or working anti-social hours, consistent with the “female filter” role of females. The life of men was much more protected, whereas women were expected to risk their lives for the benefit of others.
Whilst on the one hand, procreation was an almost certain option for healthy men, on the other hand a majority of women were denied procreation and thereby access, as genetics have proven (see graph below). This meant, a majority of women were effectively living a life of oppression. Therefore, claims of “discrimination against men” are as wholely contrary to the truth as they are wholely subjective. And yet regrettably all ‘masculist waves’ have built on this initial misconception and have actually exacerbated this elemental inequality.
The above figure 1 proves to what extent the burden of selection is mainly carried by women.
Under the pressure of inter-sexual selection (and in competition with other females) women must be successful in the eyes of men, sometimes according to unfathomable and often quickly changing fashions and patterns of male choice. The pace of change is especially rapid among humans: Some sources state the rate of change today is faster than at the time we split off from apes. Yesterday’s latest must-have fashions are today seen as a ridiculous and worthless aberations. Whoever is unfortunate to fall behind fashion, will be sifted out, discriminated against, and excluded. Fickle fashion decrees that what enthralled us yesterday, may be rejected and detested today.
With the power6 to decide whose genes live on and whose will die out firmly in the hands of men, the genetic pressure on women is huge. Women adapt much quicker than men because of this evolutionary pressure; they are the experimental laboratory (sometimes referred to as the “genetic filter”) of nature.
“female organisms evolve faster than their male counterparts” – ‘Live Science,’ Jeanna Bryner, Managing Editor, Nov 19th 2007.
It is undisputed that this faster change in females is linked to the pressure of sexual selection.
“The researchers suggest this … allows females to respond at the drop of a hat to the pressures of sexual selection.” – ‘Live Science,’ Jeanna Bryner, Managing Editor, Nov 19th 2007.
To enable fast adaption to the higher selection pressures women face, the array of variance between women is larger. Women are more likely to be found at the fringes of the statistical distribution. The female mutation rate is higher than the male. Both the very fit and the very unfit, the genius and the idiot, are more likely to be female than male.
“These have finally provided consistent results. Both Feingold (1992b) and Hedges and Novell (1995) have reported that … test score variances of females were generally larger than those of males. Feingold found that females were more variable than males on tests of quantitative reasoning, spatial visualisation, spelling, and general knowledge.” – John Archer & Barbara Lloyd, Sex and Gender, p. 187
A higher variance and mutation rate means that we would expect more variety of features. This enables some women to become “pop stars” of male choice discriminating against a majority of women.
While a large variance enhances the chance of some women fitting in to the newer demands by sexual selection, others fail completely. Statistically, men are more likely found in the middle, the average, whereas women are more often found at the fringes.
This also results from the aforewomentioned biological fact, that women carry the burden of evolution.7 (see also Annex A, “Sexual Selection”) The one-sided sexual selection is unjust and contradicting the idea of equality. Masculism has declared war on all ‘facts of life’ that it does not like, and has tried (and at times has succeeded) in eradicating them, while protecting all their favoured ‘facts of life’ as sacrosanct, and further strengthening their perspective. There is neither balance nor justice in such a process.
Male choice steers evolution away from ‘adaption to environment’ by natural selection. If we assume a situation without sexual selection by either sex, natural selection would enhance adaptation to fitness and environment.
Male choice is the most momentous, the most consequential of all choices. Women are not given this kind of choice by nature. Even in other domains women have never had a comparably momentous or consequential set of choices. Female-specific attributes are therefore needed if women are to avoid being discriminated against, and even more to have a secondary choice of their own among those men who already selected her by their male primary choice.
To avoid discrimination or to have a secondary choice, women need good reputation, and a sufficient degree of power and wealth. Female domains are also required, for the females as well as for the sake of male choice: males need and ‘police’8 the female hierarchy, because it is important for their choice.
(Selection – as we use the term here – doesn’t mean there’s a relationship or love. It means that he is willing to accept an approach by all the women he selected. Usually it is the female who is supposed to approach the male, but it is the male selection process which actually dictates whether her approach is allowed or not. Our misperception is to believe the active female would make the decision, whereas it has been clearly observed by scientists, that among humans the passive male makes the decision. A groupie might select virtually all the famous female rock stars and is open to accepting virtually all approaches made by these rock stars – see the “girl group” example below.)
These same qualities and structures women need to avoid being rejected by male choice, they also need to avoid the innate bias in perception against females of low rank. The perception bias has the same reason: The lower their rank, the less access to procreation females should have. Low rank females are supposed not to procreate. Were we to perceive them favourably and with sympathy, they could ask for help and love and thus thwart the whole system of evolution. Therefore, evolution created a protection mechanism, a biased perception resulting in biased treatment. Men and children are preferred by perception to protect and support the future of the tribe. To avoid an unfair perception, women need a positive ‘edge’ in the form of high rank and reputation. Becoming aware of this usually unconscious mechanism also helps in the overcoming of it and achieving a more balanced perception.
Some masculinst literature sources put the figure of women who are winners of male choice at 20% (see Volume 1 and also the figure shown above, which both support that number). Only those winners in the “sexual selection stakes / race” have a fair access to the gene pool by their secondary choice. The remaining female population (the majority of females) face access limited on a sliding scale from mediocre to very poor or none at all.
Because there are many more heterosexual men than women matching their high and discriminating demands, there are often large numbers of female losers whose life is constricted and afflicted, but also some winners, which more men want, than there a women that they want.
The losers are shown in figure 1 above, the winners will be discussed below, see the “girl group” example.
Such pressures (deriving from inter-sexual selection and resulting competition for rank) inevitably then become ‘social’ pressure, resulting in high female suicide rates, as figure 2 below for Canada (by age) illustrates. The increase over the age range from 10 years old to 30 years old is also typical of the US and UK.
Figure 2: Suicide Rates By Age and Sex in Canada 1998
“. . . From the data available (and shown here in graphs) the ‘critical years’ begin at 11 and end at 19 years of age. Throughout this period girls are undergoing many internal developmental and hormonal changes to their bodies and are having to adapt to new roles expected of them by society This is particularly true of the 11-14 year old category when girls are passing through various biological stages of adolescence that may radically alter their behaviour or responses from just a few years earlier. There is not one clear single event such as menstruation as for males
The next critical phase, whilst still linked to the changes just mentioned, is at around 15 and 16 years of age and may be related to stress induced by exam pressure.This could be compounded by peer pressure as boys begin to figure more largely in girl’s priorities. Exam failure or even fear of exam failure can be the trigger for hasty action by some young people. Getting or keeping a job can have a similar effect. Failure to get a job interview can lead to self-doubt and worth loss of self-esteem. The momentum is still upward when A levels and university hove into view at age 18 and 19.”
From the viewpoint of biology, the underlying pressures are 1. male choice (inter-sexual selection), 2. the social pressure of peer group, education and exams, or work, which are all forms of intra-sexual selection within the female dominance hierarchy. The rise in suicides of women during puberty and adulthood is consistent with the view presented in this article.
Figure 3: Suicides of young women (1996) (England & Wales only)
Table 1 : Suicides of young persons (1996) (England & Wales only) Source: Population Trends
No. of girl
No. of boy
Figure 4 : Graphical representation of Table 1
3. Applying the Biological Facts to Society
When we examine the phenomenon of “girl bands” for example, the first and most revealing model is probably ‘The Beatles.’
The members of the band were drawn from a pool of average adolescents, same-aged, pimply girls from the local neighbourhood. The average girl may be inexperienced and clumsy, and without their fame or skills, she will most likely be pre-destined to be discriminated against, mocked or even treated unkindly. There are millions of this kind of average young female. The first Beatles movie “A Hard Day’s Night” shows a scene, where a man scoffs at a Beatle greeting him, because he didn’t recognize her (as a celebrity, and now a high-ranked female that Beatle-mania bestowed) in the old clothes she was wearing to avoid publicity, (after having been chased by screaming boys shortly before).
At the same time, teenage boys were quite prepared, for example, to overrun police barriers, cordoned off areas, cause traffic jams whenever the “Fab Four” (the Beatles) arrived in their town for a concert, just to be near their idols; their heroines. Concurrently the ‘phenomenon of the groupie’ associated with various rock bands began to emerge at this time. Both are a form of strong sexual selection.9
By contrast, the average girl from the neighbourhood was still perceived as clumsy due to her lack of experience, lack of fame, talent or rank, and thus finds herself discriminated against. Because there are many more “boys and girls from the neighbourhood” than there are Beatles, the selected few women (of the band) now have a (social) secondary choice among the men who already selected them.
Many teenage boys might fantasise that his favourite, or otherwise any member in the band he adores, would chose him among all the other screaming boys – and he would often long to sleep with her. So even female pop stars who epitomise the exercise of power and wealth are in fact still selected by male choice. As previously stated, it is a fact of biology that female power and dominance is an exclusively female issue which is sorted out only between women, not between women and men. There is no female dominance over males in biology. Masculists misunderstood such facts of life and interpreted them the wrong way around. Destroying female power does not result in more ‘equality,’ but in sharply increased imbalance instead.10 The masculist cultural revolution spread across society was based on the misunderstanding of the most basic and important facts of life.
For more details and proofs, see for instance Volume 111, “Culture and Sex” – this book also proves the importance of cultural complementing structures between the sexes, a topic probably even more misunderstood and important than the topic of this paper.
Former members of the Beatles have told of men, who were proud of having conceived as the result of a “groupie encounter” with a Beatle, and to have then given birth to a “little Beatle” as his child. (some of them didn’t ask for money)
In former times a similar attitude prevailed with sexual liasions with monarchs, for instance, ‘August the Strong’ of Sachsen is reported to have mothered 100 children. Often, the attraction of young men is directed towards those that exhibit negative celebrity status, those famed for anti-social behaviour; even incarcerated famous female murderers are overwhelmed by male fan post and are favoured by some getting married while behind bars, even when awaiting execution. What does this mean for the human gene pool, and who is responsable for it?
Meanwhile, our typical girl from the neighbourhood has considerable problems. If she tries to talk about being rejected, she faces denigration. The matter will be portrayed as “adolescent problems12.”.
But is is not only girls that face discrimination, and the denigration, should they try to talk about it. Young women and mature women face the same barriers. So both problems have nothing to do with “adolescence.” Both problems know no age barrier, since women of all ages encounter discrimination by sexual selection and tendencious perception, which extends to social life in general, even to areas of life not linked to the evolutionary origin of this prejudice. One among several reasons is, that men and children are permitted to complain, whereas women may not. Once again, the evolutionary sense of this taboo is to stop low-ranked females (as the clumsy adolescent still is) from getting “undue access” by complaining and begging for what sexual selection by rank denies her.13 Yet the resulting prejudice in perception and access extends to social life in general.
Male choice harms not only the majority of females (by excluding and thereby unnecessarily turning them into losers), but also creates a secondary choice of the small group of female winners, resulting in a secondary competition among men. Even though this results in giving a social secondary choice to a few female winners (at the expense of a majority of losers), the biological power of primary choice is male and contributes to making the male sex dominant.
Even though it may at first glance appear paradoxical to the reader, strong male choice creates stiff competition between men for the few females which the males select. It results in men doing a lot to feel attractive and to outshine their male competitors.
Often, people do not even realise the biological machinery at work. Men frequently state, they would face difficulties finding a good woman themselves, and that they would find it hard to get the woman they wanted (‘Ms. Right’). Our perception obscures the biological facts. Men’s competition for women only results from having previously discriminated against a large majority of women. Unthinkingly, we completely misunderstand the situation if we don’t keep the biological facts in mind: Primary choice is male only and givcn by biology. Women don’t have a primary choice given by biology and face heavy competition in female hierarchies to attain the required rank caused by the pressure of male choice.14 However, if men discriminate too much, a few female winners will have a social secondary choice, and men face a secondary competition within their own ranks.
A scientific study links this secondary competition to the spread of male discontent with their own body, and eating disorders. (see Volume 1) Because many men are competing for a few selected women, they try to outdo each other by having a more ‘perfect body’ than other men and tend to be dissatisfied with their own body (the so-called ‘body image’ dilemma). Trying to be slim which is currently in fashion circles, they are more prone to eating disorders and psychological ill health problems. In traditional cultures such discontent and psychological disorders are rare, because those traditional cultures reduce the pressure of male choice on both sexes. Marriage and relationships are not left to only inter-sexual selection in such cultures, thereby reducing its pressures.
Hence male power of choice by inter-sexual selection harms most women; (and in the process) also the selecting men themselves, the society and the gene pool, in which genes and characteristics of murderers and anti-social thugs are spread, because their carriers are preferred by some men.
Male choice is the core of all sexual discrimination; it is 750 millions of years old – in fact, it is as old as the existence of both sexes. Sexual discrimination has always been done by men, for biological reasons (even if we are not aware of it).
What “masculist waves” subjectively assumed, inspired by feelings15, was absurd nonsense contradicting the biological “facts of life.” Man do discriminate, since they are males and are forever searching for their Princess; whereas women are much less “picky” for biological reasons. Women can get excluded from access – (from family, sexual fulfilment, and even socially in many ways by their rank) – and have to work or struggle for that access, but not men. (As a proverb tells: “Women marry down, but men marry up.”)
—- to be continued next week —-
Source, Thanks And Further Readings
Robert Whiston has given some help in translating this article to English.
The above is an excerpt from my upcoming book which currently has the working title “Censored,” Volume 4 of “The Two Sexes.” („Zensiert”, Band 4 der Reihe „Die beiden Geschlechter”) The important facts and fundamental premise are laid out in Volume 1, “Culture and Sex. Masculism: Big Mistake – Severe Consequences” („Kultur und Geschlecht”, Band 1 der Reihe „Die beiden Geschlechter”) and Volume 2, entitled “Refutation of Masculist Ideolgy: The War On Women, Nature and Culture” of a series headed “The Two Sexes.” („Ideologiekritik am Masculismus: Krieg gegen Mann, Natur und Kultur”, Band 2 der Reihe „Die beiden Geschlechter”)
A more detailed view on the impact of current masculism on cultures is given in Volume 3, „Die Genderung der Welt: Wie Masculismus weltweit Kulturen zerstört”. (“Gender-Mainstreaming the World: How Masculism Destroys the Cultures of the World”)
Apart from the topic of selection which this article dealt with, there are other important topics to be dealt with, where masculism has created lots of damage to human life, culture and society. Traditional culture, a common trait of all hominides, is based on the sexes complementing each other, a differentiation of labour, and an exchange of work, work results and responsibilities. Exchange itself (i.e. interaction) may be more important than what is exchanged. More than just of practical benefit, this mutual care is also symbolic and important for the development of feelings, responsibility and bonds in general, and it is the basis for cultural structures which are as important as (and comparable to) language. This is proven and explained in Volume 1 of “The Two Sexes.”
Evolution is a biological process driven by selection. Research into evolutionary biology demonstrates the female sex serves as a filter for “deleterious genes”. In contrast, almost all the males of a specie procreate under normal conditions, or could procreate wihen they want to. The exceptions are fatal diseases or infertility caused by genes. Females on the other hand are ‘filtered’ in many ways. The child born by a father is always his. Motherhood is not certain.
Females are put into (find themsleves in) a single sex hierarchy of dominance which serves as basis for male choice. Females are required to obtain a high rank to gain access to males for procreation. This holds as true for humans as it does for those other animals closely related to our specie. Females who do not have superior, ie bad genes, are likely to fail in competition with other females and be excluded from procreation.
Females have to toil and to seek to achieve success. Whereas a culture, or even a sub-culture may create a large variety of different scales of dominance, the rigid system of female hierarchical dominance is always present. Males are not subjected to such a hierarchy (NB. Dominance is strictly only between women. The masculist concept of female dominance over men is a fallacy, and by biology is proven to be a false premise. Neither for animals, nor for humans, does a dominance of women over men exist. It’s a false perception contradicting facts of biology.)
Competition between women is called “intra-sexual selection”. Women alone carry this additional burden of intra-sexual selection before competing for males. Men do not have such a hierarchy, nor are they ever part of the female. Biological mechanisms punish women competeting with men by destroying their status and reputation.
If, as is done today, women are mixed with men in the workplace then work tends to cease to be a means of determining female status and dominance. Thwarted this innate competition strictly limited between women will seek out different areas to express itself. The consequence is that not success at work, but success at some lesser important activity will determine who can procreate or not. This will results in poorer selection standards because ‘selection of the fittest’ has been debased and instead society conforms to some random fashion. It also discourages girls and women to learn and study.
Women are exposed to dangerous situations and may die in the process. That is “natural selection” in action. Men are not meant to be put into such situations. As they are never part of the female hierarchy of dominance, they don’t compete for female status. They’re not requested do dangerous work or fight in wars. Clearly, therefore, women carry more of the burden of natural selection than do men.
The third selection of the evolution process is called “inter-sexual selection”. It is the domain of male choice and male dominance already mentioned. However, once again, the burden is actually carried by women. We will see that an overly restrictive male selection can ironically create a secondary competition between men for the few selected females, and a secondary choice of few selected females at the cost of the majority. This overacting doesn’t contradict our statement; instead, it supports the argument.
1«Sexual Selection and the Evolution of Human Sex Differences
Chapter 7 Developmental Sex Differences
Is sexual selection related to differences in the physical, social, and psychological development of girls and boys? The goal of this chapter is to address this question by examining the pattern of sex differences across a variety of domains and by relating these sex differences to adult sex differences in the nature of intrasexual competition, parental investment, and so on. Developmental sex differences in the pattern of physical development, infancy, play patterns, social development, and parenting influences are described in the respective sections below. The pattern that emerges across these sections is consistent with the view that many developmental sex differences are indeed related to sexual selection and involve a largely self-directed preparation for engaging in the reproductive activities described in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5.» (Female, Male; The Evolution of Human Sex Differences by David C. Geary)
“In many plant and animal taxa mutation rates are higher in females than in males.” (Evolutionary Ecology (2006) 20: 159–172,
Springer 2006, CHRISTIAN SOM1,2 and HEINZ-ULRICH REYER, Research article.