THE FAIRER SEX
Short Stories on Male Privilege
No. 25
Mating Calls in Homo Sapiens
Submitted to the
Department of Tellurian Biology,
Mig-Tow University, Planet Incel,
as part dissertation for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Declaration and Certificate of Research
This is to certify that neither thesis nor any part of it, has been
submitted or is concurrently submitted in candidature
for any degree at any other university.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Candidate
This is to certify that the research described in this thesis is the result of
investigation by the candidate under supervision of the professor
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Professor
1.0 Synopsis
The males of many animals emit 'mating calls'. These are auditory signals, the purpose of which is to attract the attention of females, and, by so doing, convey the reproductive fitness of the males. The females listen, then choose their mate accordingly.
We have studied mating calls in Homo sapiens ('earthlings'; sometimes 'humans'), the commonest primate, which is mostly hairless, bipedal, intelligent and cognitively sophisticated. At present there are slightly more than eight billion of them.
To our surprise, we learned that advertising males are subjected to public shaming or scorn, and sometimes, even, to punishment by legal fiat. In effect, males must not advertise to females. This censoriousness is counter-instinctual, and therefore anomalous.
We explain this paradox by positing the evolution of a new subspecies, namely Homo sapiens feministus.
2.0 Introduction
In species that reproduce sexually, which would include all the higher phylogeny, an ovum (the gamete that defines the female) is fertilised by a spermatozoan (the gamete that defines the male). This is, in effect, a transaction in which the two partners invest in one another. There are, however (as with all investments) associated risks; and these are unequally borne. In fact, the female invariably incurs the greater risks, biologically speaking - on planet Earth this is a universal rule.
The nature and magnitude of these risks are of course species-dependent; but all share the most fundamental one: the female's supply of ova is strictly limited; whereas the male's supply of spermatozoa is (by comparison) effectively limitless. It is as if two partners start a business, with the female supplying 99.9999% of the start-up capital, the male the remaining 0.0001%.
Obviously, this asymmetry has massive implications for mating rituals. It is wholly unsurprising, for instance, that females are far more choosy about males, than males are about females. Also, males must advertise to females, then get selected by one of them. Put differently, males must adopt strategies that 'get themselves noticed'; then 'get themselves chosen'. And to succeed in this quest, they must somehow convey their 'good genes' or 'reproductive fitness'. Advertising strategies are of course legion; but here we shall focus on audible signalling.
Amongst insects, males use stridulating organs in which two specially textured body-parts are rubbed together. In crickets, for example, the stridulatory organ, located on the forewing, has comb-like serrations on in its edge, thus creating a file-and-scraper. This apparatus is unarguably sexual, since it is absent from the female. Indeed, the courting 'song', if we may call it that, is used whenever a female draws near. She listens; then decides. Females, indeed, on the basis of the 'song' alone, will select young, more fertile males. This is because, the older the male, the more worn are the serrations, and consequently, the poorer the quality of the 'song'.
Amongst amphibians, the mating call is known as 'croaking'. This sound is created by passing air through the larynx, then amplifying it by repeatedly distending and contracting vocal sacs under the throat, or in the corner of the mouth. Although females certainly possess comparable apparatus, they emit sounds very rarely; and they never croak as males do. Rather, females just sit and listen to the male chorus. Females prefer croaks of greater intensity and lower frequency, meaning bigger males. (Amusingly, males sometimes amplify their calls by sitting within the drainpipes that are part of the earthling's infrastructure. The excited female is presumably disappointed!)
Amongst birds, males attract females with 'birdsong'; this means a panoply of sounds such as whistles, trills or even gurgles. In many avian species, only males sing, sometimes only unpaired ones; while females are often unmusical, and just listen. Females prefer males that display larger and more elaborate repertoires: an auditory equivalent of the peacock's tail, in effect. As with the peacock, this behaviour is entirely explicable if repertoire is a proxy for qualities such as neurology, health, parasite resistance and foraging ability - in other words, indicative of reproductive fitness.
This brings us to Homo sapiens ('earthlings'), a primate that diverged from its nearest common ancestor, the chimpanzee, about five million Earth-years ago. As with other animals, males must 'get noticed' by females. The earthlings have various colloquial terms for mating calls: 'wolf whistling', for example. (This is misleading: earthlings are not copying wolves.) In the wolf whistle, the male ejects a puff of air from between pursed lips, during which he moves his tongue. This creates a two-note glissando: a peal upwards to higher note; then a peal downwards to a lower note. The sound is usually of sufficient amplitude to carry for several tens of meters. (On a variation of this, a far louder sound is sometimes made by inserting two fingers of each hand into the mouth). There is no reason for supposing that females cannot also make this sound - the behaviour is sexually dimorphic, yes, but not for physiological or neurological reasons. Rather, females seem to have no reason to make this sound.
3.0 Investigation
We observed - covertly of course, in accordance with statutory regulations - the phenomenon of wolf-whistling at two locations. Site 1, located in London, England, was a construction site on which a substantial apartment block was nearing completion. Although not strictly a 'mating site' or 'trysting place', we chose it because wolf-whistling at such construction sites is routinely singled out for condemnation in earthling media. The workers at these sites are invariably male, and they wolf-whistle at females as they walk by. This behaviour is facilitated by scaffolding, which serves as a kind of 'gantry' or 'observation platform'. Site 2, located in Manchester, England, lay in a back street close to the entrance of a 'nightclub'. In these nightclubs, which do serve explicitly as 'mating sites', males and females jerk and twist their bodies in synchrony to cacophonous, unmusical noises and stroboscopic lights, while consuming large amounts of a disinhibitory drug, namely CH2CH3OH. We observe, en passant, that after consuming large amounts of CH2CH3OH, males are held accountable for their actions nevertheless, whereas females are not. The reason for this discrepancy is not known.
Site 1: A Construction Site
This site operated only during daylight hours, generally about 9am to 6pm. There was no work on Sundays. The number of workmen could not be ascertained precisely, but varied from day to day, from about fifteen to twenty-five. These workers are readily identified by their bright yellow upper garments, and the hard carapace or 'helmet' with which they protect their heads. This form of dress does not, however, exclusively demarcate skilled manual workers, as managers and architects also use them. The wolf-whistling we witnessed, though, was explicitly practised by skilled manual workers. There is no reason to suppose that managers and architects lack the neurophysiological apparatus to wolf-whistle; rather, they choose not to do so. This behavioural difference between occupational classes remains unexplained.
During the course of one month, we observed a total of thirty-three instances of wolf-whistling. The targeted females were young (i.e., of child-bearing age), slim, with an attractive face. Six responded in a manner that was short and somewhat pithy e.g., 'Get lost'; 'Fuck off'; and 'No chance, mate.' On one occasion, a middle-aged female, possibly still of child-bearing age, turned round and laughed, while wagging her finger at the wolf-whistling male. The male then said, 'Have a good day, love', at which the female turned back and continued her journey with a lingering smile. In all the other instances, the females ignored the wolf-whistle; although we cannot rule out the possibility that it was not heard, as construction sites are noisy places.
For scientific rigour we must also consider instances in which passing females were not wolf-whistled. We observed many instances of this: these females were middle-aged, elderly, or overweight. On these occasions the men continued about their duties, as if the passing females were invisible. Another female not wolf-whistled was most certainly of child-bearing age, but, unlike the others, she had adopted an exotic appearance: her hair was dyed with blue streaks, her face was tattooed, and her nasal septum contained a metallic ring. She was also substantially overweight. After passing the construction site, and observing that the males were oblivious to her presence, she returned and berated them for wolf-whistling at passing females. 'Women are not bodies on display!' she shouted. 'Wolf-whistling is a hate crime!' 'Misogynists!' 'Phallus-fascists!' The men looked at one another with incredulity and remained silent; although one of them was heard to say: 'Strewth - not tonight, love.'
Site 2: A Night Club
We observed the entrance to the nightclub between the hours of 10pm and 2am, on a Friday and a Saturday night. These are the most active hours in the whole week.
At these events, we have come to suspect that females compete with one another in minimising the area of fabric that covers their bodies. In many instances, for example, the ostensible 'dress' has numerous 'cut-outs', especially in the vicinity of the breast. The fabric clings to the female body like a second skin, around the breasts and the buttocks, disguising very little; the midriff is exposed, as are the legs, almost as far as the pudenda. The fabric, moreover, is of such astonishing elasticity that, when taken off, it reduces to the size of an earthling's handkerchief. Since the females dress themselves thus, no matter how cold the weather, and voluntarily so, then this behaviour is probably instinctive.
In total we observed three instances of wolf-whistling. In the first, three males were walking along one side of the street, four females along the other side. When one of the males emitted his mating call, all of the females laughed; one of them shouted 'You wish'; another, 'Small dick'. (When females wish to demean a male, their first resort is to claim that his sex organ is diminutive). The males then laughed in unison, while the advertising one clasped his chest as if struck by an arrow, and shouted 'You're breaking my heart.' Both groups, nevertheless, approached the entrance to the nightclub, mingling eagerly as they did so; one of the males put his arm around one of the females, and without objection.
In the second instance, an automobile of exceptional value entered the street, and drew alongside the entrance to the nightclub. For reasons we shall come to presently, we estimated the value of this automobile: it was around fourteen times an average salary. The window on the driver's side was lowered, a wolf-whistle was discharged from the car; and a group of females, noticeably excited, approached and began conversing with the driver. The females jostled and pushed one another, each seeking an opportunity to speak to the driver.
In the third instance, when a single wolf-whistle came from a group of seven males, four police females leaped from a van and surrounded the advertising male. We provide here a transcript of the conversation that ensued.
Police female 1:
'We observed you wolf-whistle at those women.'
Male:
'It were 'im over there.'
Police female 3:
'Don't play ignorant. We have you on CCTV.'
Police female 2:
'Wolf-whistling means that you hate women.'
Male:
'What are you talking about? I love women.'
Police female 1:
'Women shouldn't have to put up with it.'
Male:
'Put up with what?'
Police female 4:
'Unwanted attention. That's a hate crime.'
Police female 1:
'It's misogyny. Street harassment. Pure and simple.'
Police female 2:
'It's not harmless; it's not a joke; it's not a compliment.'
Police female 3:
'Put your hands behind your back.'
Male:
'What offence have I committed?'
Police female 1:
'Misogyny, contrary to Section 3.4.1 of the Violence Against Women and Girls Act: "Making a sexual advance to a woman without having the clairvoyant powers to know that she wants you to make a sexual advance" .'
4.0 Discussion
Instinctive behaviour by definition requires no deliberation, calculation or awareness at any conscious level. Dogs, for example, never think in the manner of an earthling, 'I'll turn around a few times before lying down'. Earthlings possess high-level executive functioning; and they are proud, sometimes overly so, of their skills in logic, reasoning, and ratiocination. They will, nevertheless, behave instinctively on occasion, without any conscious awareness of those instincts, what those instincts are for, or why those instincts even exist.
Sexual behaviour is driven by sexual instincts, and sexual instincts are programmed by sexual selection. In their ancestral environment, earthlings that behaved a certain way found a mate and left progeny; while those behaving in other ways failed to find a mate, or left no progeny. Present-day earthlings are descended from their successful forebears, not their unsuccessful ones. To form a pair-bond, males and females must first find one another, and mating strategies will evolve to do so: successful ones will be selected for; unsuccessful ones will disappear.
Females Who Are Wolf-Whistled
When females were wolf-whistled, two typical replies were: 'No chance, mate'; and 'You wish'. These replies, which we classify as 'flat rejection' and 'sarcastic rejection' respectively, reveal that the females understood the motivation for the wolf-whistle: an attempt to instigate social interaction, which, if successful, would culminate in sexual congress.
On one occasion, we observed several females simultaneously accept a wolf-whistle, then begin fighting amongst themselves over the male: we refer to the incident with the expensive automobile. Such behaviour is readily explicable: the male's provisioning role in the pair-bond; for females prefer males with greater resources. In the ancestral environment, females who prioritised the provisioning ability of the male left more progeny.
In this connection we would expect manual workers, who are remunerated at lower rates (and readily identified by their bright-yellow jackets) to experience higher rates of rejection; although more research would be required to conform this.
Only in one instance was a woman of middle-age wolf-whistled; at which she laughed and wagged her finger at the advertising male - mock-censoring, in other words. We advance two hypotheses here. (a) Attitudes to wolf-whistling have changed over the years, and older women reached adulthood in a different milieu (see below). (b) The female was flattered to be perceived as still fertile, even if insincerely so (indeed the male may have behaved jocularly). With this second hypothesis, it should be recognised that females make far more effort than males to disguise their advancing age. This is consistent with the fact that female fertility declines rapidly after age thirty, while males remain fertile for far longer.
Females Who Are NOT Wolf-Whistled
Not all females were wolf-whistled: the age of the female is most certainly an important criterion. Elderly females were ignored; those in early adulthood were most likely to be wolf-whistled. This is entirely consistent with the fertility of the female, which peaks between the late teens and late-20s; but since we lack means of determining age with any precision, our evidence must remain qualitative at this stage.
The second criterion is undoubtedly the waist-to-hip ratio of the female. Fortunately, the importance of waist-to-hip ratio to fertility has already been extensively researched - peak fertility falls within the range 0.68 to 0.72. In fact, if females fall within this range, they can be a few years older and yet more fertile than younger ones who are overweight. We were less able to ascertain waist-to-hip ratio on the construction site, as females were more fully clad. In the vicinity of the night club, however, where females were barely clothed, we obtained some good data: the likelihood of a female being wolf-whistled was highly correlated with waist-to-hip ratio. If females exceed a ratio of 0.72, they are far less likely to be wolf-whistled. Obese females were never wolf-whistled.
Viewed in this light, it is difficult to see wolf-whistling as anything other than a harmless auditory signal that females are free to accept or reject; for it is uncoercive. This is sexual instinct, in males as well as females. It seems to work much as expected.
Two (earthling) generations ago, wolf-whistling was regularly depicted in celluloid as harmless, light-hearted and amusing. The actresses typically subjected to wolf-whistling were notable for their sex appeal ('Screen Goddesses'). This was of course drama, not real life. But were these scenes genuine depictions of public attitudes? We cannot, yet, answer this question unequivocally. We suspect, however, that public attitudes have inverted in the intervening decades. The following article recently appeared in a newspaper, the Guardian.
The Far-Right Wolf at the Door
Lorrie Baits
Wolf-whistling is a common form of far-right street harassment, in which a far-right, predatory man treats a woman as a sex object. This practise is further evidence of how much power far-right men have over us, in a world where women are routinely commodified. We should not delude ourselves that this is flattery; it has nothing to do with sexual interaction; its goal is to demonstrate the power that far-right men have over women; to intimidate women; to frighten women. It is a violation of women's rights, and is proof of deep-rooted gender inequality. Far-right gender inequality, that is. And far-right male privilege. And far-right toxic masculinity. Far-right, far-right, far-right.
If such behaviour was regarded as inoffensive in the past, then why is it regarded as offensive today? We believe the instinctive function of wolf-whistling is now misconstrued. The purpose is not to 'objectify' the female. Rather, the male is simply saying, 'Hey, look at me - I'm over here'. When this is recognised, another intriguing question arises. When females dress themselves such that their clothing comes to resemble a second skin - and this manner of adornment is not forced on them - their bodily contours (buttocks, waists, breasts, legs) are put on public display, thus sending a visual signal of mate-worthiness to the males. We must ask, then, why females may send visual signals to males, but males may not send auditory signals to females. If an auditory signal constitutes 'harassment', then why not a visual one? (As hinted earlier, earthlings sometimes over-estimate their logical reasoning). The wolf-whistle expresses admiration for the female's appearance, but only insofar as the male considers the female mate-worthy. If females prefer not to be considered mate-worthy, then why do they spend so much of their time, money and effort making themselves appear mate-worthy? We would suggest that some form of social pressure now opposes an instinctive drive.
Earthling societies display great zeal in condemning and eradicating what they refer to as 'sexism'. From extensive studies that we shall present elsewhere, we are now in a position to define this word: it means 'treating females disadvantageously, relative to males'. But we can find little evidence of such treatment, at least in 'Western Civilisation'. Instead, we find extensive evidence that males are disadvantageously treated relative to females; although, we would admit, this does not fall under the earthling's definition of 'sexism'. We are driven to suspect that, since there is not enough sexism to supply the demand for it, then it must be concocted.
In this respect we now posit the emergence of a subspecies, Homo sapiens feministus, which, although it can still interbreed with Homo sapiens, is nevertheless sufficiently different to justify a distinct taxonomy of its own. This investigation furnished our first clue of its existence: Homo sapiens feministus is characterised by unnatural hair colours such as blue or orange, metallic rings through nasal septa, unattractive or even ugly faces, and waist-to-hip ratios that betray extensive over-feeding. These are the morphological differences, to which we add cognitive problems such as difficulties with reasoning logically, an imperviousness to facts, and a tendency to shout 'the future is female' or 'believe all women'. Above all, Homo sapiens feministus invents fake sexism, the motivation for which is to persecute and scapegoat males.
5.0 Conclusion
1. We remain confident in our thesis that wolf-whistling lies on the same courtship spectrum as singing in birds, croaking in frogs and stridulation in insects.
2. Earthling males wolf-whistle earthling females to attract their attention - the earthling females are then free to accept or reject the earthling male.
3. In numerous ways, earthling males and earthling females behave in ways that are entirely consistent with sexual selection.
4. Censoriousness toward wolf-whistling is driven by a subspecies, Homo sapiens feministus. This subspecies manufactures fake sexism, in order to shame, scapegoat and persecute earthling males.
Endnotes
• Wolf whistling can now be reported as a hate crime - BBC News
• MPs approve plans to make street sexual harassment a crime - BBC News
• Catcalling Doesn't Exist (youtube.com). (JohntheOther).
• What the catcalling video gets wrong | FACTUAL FEMINIST (youtube.com)
• 🇬🇧 MANCHESTER NIGHTLIFE 2:00 AM ENGLAND - 2024 (youtube.com)
• The Man-Shaming Project - The Fiamengo File Episode 11 (youtube.com)
(c) Cufwulf Montagu
Cufwulf@aol.com
