Skip to content

Patriarchy

David Buss acknowledges patterns often labeled as patriarchy (e.g., greater male control of resources and power in many societies historically) but rejects the common feminist framing of it as a unified male conspiracy or autonomous force to oppress women as a group. Instead, he explains elements of it through evolutionary psychology, particularly co-evolved mating strategies.

Key quote from The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating

This is the closest and most frequently cited passage challenging the “men united against women” view of patriarchy:

“Feminist theory sometimes portrays men as being united with all other men in their common purpose of oppressing women. But the evolution of human mating suggests that this scenario cannot be true, because men and women compete primarily against members of their own gender. Men strive to control resources mainly at the expense of other men. Men deprive other men of their resources, exclude other men from positions of status and power, and derogate other men in order to make them less desirable to women. Indeed, the fact that nearly 70 percent of all homicides are inflicted by men on other men reveals the tip of the iceberg of the cost of competition to men. The fact that men on average die years earlier than women in every culture is further testimony to the penalties men pay for this struggle with other men.

Women do not escape damage inflicted by members of their own sex. Women compete with each other for access to high-status men, have sex with other women’s husbands, and lure men away from their wives. Mate poaching is a ubiquitous sexual strategy of our species. Women slander and denigrate their rivals and are especially harsh toward women who pursue short-term sexual strategies. Women and men are both victims of the sexual strategies of their own gender and so can hardly be said to be united with their own gender for some common goal.

Moreover, both men and women benefit from the strategies of the opposite sex. Men lavish resources and protection on certain women, including their wives, their sisters, their daughters, and their mistresses. A woman’s father, brothers, and sons all benefit from her selection of a mate who is flush with abundance. Contrary to the view that men or women are united with all members of their own sex for the purpose of oppressing the other sex, each individual shares key interests with particular members of each sex and is in conflict with other members of each sex. Simple-minded views of a same-sex conspiracy have no foundation in reality.”

  • In When Men Behave Badly and interviews about it, Buss discusses “patriarchal laws” or structures (e.g., historical non-recognition of marital rape) as products of evolved male psychology rather than an independent “patriarchy” descending from nowhere. He notes these are not autonomous and that women’s mate preferences for status/resources are part of the causal chain that helped produce greater male resource control.
  • In a 1999 commentary (“The evolutionary psychology of patriarchy: Women are not passive pawns in men’s game,” with Joshua Duntley) and related writing, he argues women are not passive; their preferences for men with status and resources, combined with men’s competitive strategies, help explain aspects of what is called patriarchy. He has publicly clarified that claims he said “women created patriarchy” mischaracterize this.
  • From The Murderer Next Door: He criticizes explanations of domestic violence that treat men as united in oppressing all women via patriarchy, calling them incompatible with evolutionary logic because men primarily compete with other men and have protective interests toward female kin.

Buss treats patriarchy (or elements of it) as real in the descriptive sense of historical/cross-cultural patterns of male resource and status control, but insists on evolutionary causes (female choice + male competition) over conspiracy or pure social-construction accounts. He does not deny its existence or effects; he reframes its origins. Direct quotes saying it “doesn’t exist” do not appear in the available sources from his books.