to-read
(599)
currently-reading (3)
read (177)
dnf (10)
young-adult-fantasy (12)
dark-academia (9)
romantasy (8)
action-adventure-fantasy (7)
historical-fiction (7)
lgbtq (7)
mystery (7)
newlynova-recs (7)
currently-reading (3)
read (177)
dnf (10)
young-adult-fantasy (12)
dark-academia (9)
romantasy (8)
action-adventure-fantasy (7)
historical-fiction (7)
lgbtq (7)
mystery (7)
newlynova-recs (7)
classics
(6)
early-2000s (5)
mental-health (5)
oprah-s-bookclub (5)
fae-fantasy (4)
persian-lit (4)
puji-3 (4)
sci-fi (4)
smart-people-books (4)
1800s-romance (3)
adventure (3)
horror (3)
early-2000s (5)
mental-health (5)
oprah-s-bookclub (5)
fae-fantasy (4)
persian-lit (4)
puji-3 (4)
sci-fi (4)
smart-people-books (4)
1800s-romance (3)
adventure (3)
horror (3)
“Women had less opportunities to obtain food and required a lot of help, she needed a man. In order to ensure her own survival and the survival of her children, the women had little choice but to agree to whatever conditions the man stipulated so that he would stick around and share some of the burden. The feminine genes that made it to the next generation belonged to women who were submissive caretakers. Women who spent too much time fighting for power did not leave any of those powerful genes for future generations.
The result of these different survival strategies, so the theory goes, is that men have been programmed to be ambitious and competitive and to excel in politics and business, whereas women have tended to move out of the way and dedicate their lives to raising children.
But this approach also seems to be belied by the empirical evidence. Particularly problematic is the assumption that women's dependence on external help made them dependent on men rather than on other women, and that male competitiveness made men's socially dominant.
There are many species of animals, such as elephants and bonobo chimpanzees, in which the dynamics between dependent females and competitive males results in a matriarchal society. Since females need external help, they are obliged to develop their social skills and learn how to cooperate and appease. They construct all female social networks that help each member raise her children.
Males meanwhile spend their time fighting and competing. Their social skills and social bonds remain underdeveloped. Bonobo and elephant societies are controlled by strong networks of cooperative females, while the self-centered and uncooperative males are pushed to the sidelines. Though Bonobo females are weaker on average than the males, the females often gang up to beat males who overstepped their limits.
If this is possible among bonobos and elephants, why not among Homo sapiens?
Sapiens are relatively weak animals whose advantage rests in their ability to cooperate in large numbers. If so, we should expect that dependent women, even if they are dependent on men, would use their superior social skills to cooperate to alt maneuver and manipulate aggressive, autonomous, and self-centered men. How did it happen that in the one species whose success depends above all on cooperation, individuals who are supposedly less cooperative, men, control individuals who are supposedly more cooperative, women?”
― Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
The result of these different survival strategies, so the theory goes, is that men have been programmed to be ambitious and competitive and to excel in politics and business, whereas women have tended to move out of the way and dedicate their lives to raising children.
But this approach also seems to be belied by the empirical evidence. Particularly problematic is the assumption that women's dependence on external help made them dependent on men rather than on other women, and that male competitiveness made men's socially dominant.
There are many species of animals, such as elephants and bonobo chimpanzees, in which the dynamics between dependent females and competitive males results in a matriarchal society. Since females need external help, they are obliged to develop their social skills and learn how to cooperate and appease. They construct all female social networks that help each member raise her children.
Males meanwhile spend their time fighting and competing. Their social skills and social bonds remain underdeveloped. Bonobo and elephant societies are controlled by strong networks of cooperative females, while the self-centered and uncooperative males are pushed to the sidelines. Though Bonobo females are weaker on average than the males, the females often gang up to beat males who overstepped their limits.
If this is possible among bonobos and elephants, why not among Homo sapiens?
Sapiens are relatively weak animals whose advantage rests in their ability to cooperate in large numbers. If so, we should expect that dependent women, even if they are dependent on men, would use their superior social skills to cooperate to alt maneuver and manipulate aggressive, autonomous, and self-centered men. How did it happen that in the one species whose success depends above all on cooperation, individuals who are supposedly less cooperative, men, control individuals who are supposedly more cooperative, women?”
― Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
Moo’s 2025 Year in Books
Take a look at Moo’s Year in Books, including some fun facts about their reading.
Polls voted on by Moo
Lists liked by Moo



































