evidence-based-activism

[evidence-based-activism]

Thank you smart woman for educating the uneducated like me. Very useful blog. 10/10 will recommend to friends and family.

I'm sure you're not uneducated! Thanks either way!

[evidence-based-activism]

something about the framing of this bugs me but I can’t articulate it very well

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DA84G8NsdQS/?igsh=eGw3YWN6MWQ3a3Bw

Your issue with the framing is probably that it is implicitly blaming women for men's problems. Or that they are comparing the massive social systems that have barred women from education and employment for generations to the unrelated issues (i.e., caused by something other than sexism, such as economic issues) by a small group of men.

---

Beyond the framing, however, this video is simply misleading. (I found the article it was based on [1] and am pulling the information from there.)

Education

First, I have provided evidence against a "boy's educational crisis" in the past. The particularly relevant portion is below:

In addition that, women are outpacing men in college entrance and graduation in the USA, according to the Pew Research Center [5]. Specifically, 39% of women over age 25 have a Bachelor's degree compared to 37% of men. However, when considering only the most recent cohort (adults aged 25 to 34), 46% of women have a Bachelor's degree compared to 36% of men. Importantly, however, this difference is not driven by structural inequality. For individuals who did not earn a Bachelor's degree, 44% of women report financial constraints and 38% report family obligations, compared to 39% and 35% of men respectively. In contrast, 34% of men reported they "just didn't want to" and 26% report they didn't need it for their desired job, compared to 25% and 20% of women respectively. This does not support the narrative of an external "boy's crisis". And, in addition to all of that, men are still the majority in highest paying jobs, the majority in governmental and commercial leadership positions, more likely to be the primary or sole earner in a family, and earn more - on average - that women [6].

Unemployment

Their claim that "young women are now more likely to be in work than young men" is based on this graphic:

If you actually examine the graphic, however, you can see that the employment rate for young (age 20 to 24) men and women is essentially identical. They have not presented results of a formal statistical test nor provided the data necessary for me to conduct one. That being said, I would be extremely surprised if any of these differences are statistically significant (i.e., it is likely the difference is based on sampling bias, not a true difference in the population).

And if we were to assume that these differences are significant? Then in four of the six countries, young men's employment rates are still higher than young women's rates.

Further, they later present a table of results indicating the difference between men and women in employment in the UK was less than 1%. In other words, the size of the difference was negligible. But beyond all of that, recent data [2] indicates a reversal of this trend in the UK, with more men (aged 18-24) than women (aged 18-24) being employed. Importantly, I am not actually suggesting that this proves there is a difference between the sexes. Instead, I intended to show how these minute, transient discrepancies are not evidence of a wider trend.

(Also, I do not have access to their exact dataset, so I am basing this off of the employment rate for men and women aged 18-24 in the UK as provided by the Office of National Statistics.)

Their next graph shows a similar discrepancy between their data and their claims:

Here, we are looking at the percent of young men and women who are in neither the labor force nor education. Once again, we see that the rates for young men and women are essentially identical, except in the USA where women are more likely than men to be out of both work and education.

Now, this does not appear to include men or women who are "unemployed" and at the time they show that the percentage of young men in the UK who were unemployed was 4.6% greater than the percentage of women in the UK who were unemployed. However, once again, recent data suggests this difference is shrinking [2]. It is also likely that part of the reason why men's unemployment rate in this age group is higher than women's in this age group is because women are more likely to go to college (i.e., people in education are not counted as unemployed because they are not actively looking for a job).

(Again, I do not have access to their exact dataset, so I am basing this off of the unemployment rate for men and women aged 18-24 in the UK as provided by the Office of National Statistics.)

Income

Lastly, they argue young women's incomes have overtaken young men's incomes with the following graph:

There are multiple issues with this. First, based on the graph comparing all young men to all young women, men's and women's incomes are, once again, essentially the same. Once again, they do not provide the raw data needed for me to perform a formal statistical test.

In comparison, we can see that the median income for men with a degree is comparatively much higher than the median income for women with a degree. Further, this gap has recently widened after several years of nearly identical incomes.

Now, the comparison of incomes for women and men without a degree does appear to show that women's incomes are now higher than men's income. (For one or two years.)

However, they include a vitally important note at the end of their article:

Median incomes were calculated using the full population of young adults as opposed to only those in employment. Income includes wages, benefits / social security and any other sources of personal revenue. [Emphasis mine]

In other words, this difference in median incomes could have been a result of the transiently higher unemployment rate for young men.

In support of this, other data from the UK [3, 4] found that women aged 16-34 are more likely than all other gender-age groups to need to use food banks, to not be able to keep regular savings, and various other signs of material deprivation.

Conclusion

From this, we can conclude that the characterization of young women as "leaving men behind" is, at the very least, an incomplete, if not completely inaccurate, picture.

The only aspect this may genuinely apply to is higher education, but as the data from the US shows, it is not sex-based structural constraints that are preventing men from going to college. While financial issues do limit many people's ability to attend higher education, women are more likely than men to cite this as a reason for not getting a degree.

Finally, I am absolutely amazed that this video appears to be blaming men's support of populism and endorsement of violence on these economic trends. Their own graphs show that women have been far worse off economically and educationally than men are now, and yet women never reported the same levels of conservatism and extremism. Even if we were to assume their assertion about the connection is true, what would that say about men?

References under the cut:

Burn-Murdoch, J. (2024, September 20). Young women are starting to leave men behind. Financial Times.

Office for National Statistics. (2025, March 20). A05 SA: Employment, unemployment and economic inactivity by age group (seasonally adjusted) [Dataset]. https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/datasets/employmentunemploymentandeconomicinactivitybyagegroupseasonallyadjusteda05sa

Data dashboard: Material deprivation. (n.d.). Understanding Society. https://www.understandingsociety.ac.uk/cost-of-living-dashboard/

University of Essex, Institute for Social and Economic Research. (2024). Understanding Society: Waves 1-14, 2009-2023 and Harmonised BHPS: Waves 1-18, 1991-2009. [data collection]. 19th Edition. UK Data Service. SN: 6614, http://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-6614-20.

[evidence-based-activism]

I just wanna thank you for you work! It's extremely important in the age of misinformation and fear mongering! Thank you!

Thank you!!

[evidence-based-activism]

I know men are the sex that commits violent crime the most, but what about non-violent crime? Are the statistics more evened out between men and women?

Hello!

So, data on non-violent crime is a bit less reliable for a few reasons. First, there may not be any witnesses to the crime. For example, someone breaking into your empty house to steal is a property crime which often goes unobserved. Second, most of the representative samples I have found for perpetrator demographics only concerned violent crime. Third, some non-violent crimes are even less likely to be reported or solved than violent crimes [1]. Fourth, there is greater ambiguity in definitions and reporting standards.

All of this is to say, we have less reliable data for non-violent crimes. That being said, the data we do have suggests that the gender gap in crime is reduced but not eliminated for non-violent crimes.

Property Crime

This category includes crimes involving another person's property, such as: larceny, auto theft, petty theft, and vandalism.

First, this analysis of US property crime data [2] found that women accounted for only 30% of property crimes in 2015. Given that women account for approximately 51% of the population, if there were parity in offenses we would expect them to account for 51% of offenses; since they do not, this indicates there is still a gender gap in property crime.

This report analyzed both self-reported offending and criminal statistics in Britain in 2009 [3]. Based on the self-reported offending rates for minor crimes for 10-25 year olds, women accounted for:

25% of vehicle-related thefts

38% of criminal damage

42% of "other" thefts

This likely the smallest the gender gap will be, as this is in reference to minor crimes and for the youngest age groups (both of which are related to a higher proportion of female offending).

This analysis of arrest data from Canada [4] indicated women made up 29% of property crime arrestees in 2017. However, this overall figure includes white-collar crime as well, which I will be discussing next. For traditional property crimes, the proportion of female arrestees ranged from 15% (breaking and entering) to 43% (shoplifting).

In a similar analysis of UK 2023 prosecution data [5], indicated women made up between 16% (criminal damage and arson) and 19% (theft) of people prosecuted for property crimes. (Notably, there is quite a bit of variation even within a category, such as theft. This may or may not reflect real differences given the relatively low sample sizes in each sub-category.)

In a similar analysis of 10 cumulative years of FBI data [6*] for between 19% (burglary) and 41% (theft, unspecified) of arrests.

This more detailed and formal analysis of FBI data [7] indicated that women accounted for 38% of all larcenies (thefts), but again with variation on the specific type of theft (i.e., women accounted for only 11% of motor vehicle thefts but 45% of shoplifting thefts).

Together, this indicates that the proportion of female offenders varies widely even within the property crime category. Women accounting for between a quarter and a third of property crime offenders appears to be a reasonable estimate.

White Collar Crime

This category is similar to property crimes, such that categorizing it separately is often debated. That being said, this category also includes crimes involving another person's property, but in these cases the offender does not necessarily take physical possession of that property. Examples include fraud, embezzling, insider trading, and tax evasion.

Estimates of the proportion of female offenders of white-collar crime vary substantially.

The same analysis of FBI data from earlier [7] indicated women accounted for 49% of a all fraud offenses (e.g., bad checks, wire fraud, etc.) and 21% of forgery offenses. This is in contrast to a Norwegian analysis that found women accounted for only 7% of white-collar criminals [8] and a German analysis which found women accounted for only 8% of white-collar criminals [9].

Further, an additional analysis of corporate criminals [10] found 9% were female. Further, they noted significant qualitative differences in their involvement in the crime where the "gender gap among co-conspirators was very large for ringleaders ... and major players ... but trivial for defendants playing minor roles." They also review other research suggesting a similar pattern (i.e., closer to gender parity for minor offenses, but a large gender gap for major offenses).

Returning to the sources from earlier, arrest data from Canada [4] indicated women accounted for approximately a third of white-collar criminal arrests (e.g., fraud, identity theft). Further, British statistics suggested women accounted for between 25% [5] and 36% [3] of fraud offenses. The ten years of FBI data [6] indicated women accounted for 33% of forgery arrests, 36% of fraud arrests, and 49% of embezzlement arrests.

Once again, this illustrates a wide range of estimates for women's involvement in white-collar crime. As a whole, there appears to still be a large gender gap in white-collar crime. However, their involvement varies by offense, with some women reaching near parity for some offenses and estimates. Qualitatively speaking, women appear to be primarily involved in more minor crimes or in a minor role in more major crimes.

Other Crimes

There are several other categories aside from violent crime, property crime, and white-collar crime. These include: organized crime, "morality" crimes (e.g., drug, gambling, prostitution), public order offenses (e.g., "drunk and disorderly," illegal possession of a weapon, etc.). However, we have much less data on these. I'll briefly discuss a few of these:

Drug Crimes

Based on the Canada data [4], women accounted for about 20% of drug crimes.

In the UK [3], women accounted for 33% of minor "selling drug" offenses based on self-report data. Based on their official statistics [3] on serious drug offenses, women accounted for 11% of possession offenses, 15% of dealing offenses, and 17% of production/import/export offenses. Other UK data [5] suggests women account for 8% of all drug offense prosecutions.

Lastly, based on the FBI data [6], 16-30% of drug offenses, depending on the category (i.e., possession vs manufacturing) and the drug (e.g., narcotics, marijuana, etc.).

Organized Crime

An interesting recent paper [11] found women accounted for between 2% - 11% of people involved in organized crime, depending on the country studied. Ultimately, their "analysis provides evidence for an ongoing gender gap in organized crime, with women occupying structural positions that are generally associated with a lack of power."

Prostitution

The one crime where the gender gap reverses (i.e., where more women than men are arrested) is prostitution. Here, at least two-thirds of arrests are of women [6, 12]. However, in reality, the sex gap is likely closer to 90% female [13-15].

Bonus: Traffic Violations

Men commit the majority of traffic violations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the gender gap in criminal offending is reduced for non-violent offenses (particularly minor non-violent offenses) and younger age groups. However, with a few exceptions there is still a gender gap in offending.

I hope this helps!

References below the cut:

Gramlich, J. (2024, April 24). What the data says about crime in the U.S. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/24/what-the-data-says-about-crime-in-the-us/

Campaniello, N., & Gavrilova, E. (2018). Uncovering the gender participation gap in crime. European Economic Review, 109, 289-304.

Hunter, Gillian, Hearnden, I., & Gyateng, T. (2009). Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System (A Ministry of Justice Publication under Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991). The Institute for Criminal Policy Research.

Savage, L. (2019). Female offenders in Canada, 2017. Juristat: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 1-20.

Women and the Criminal Justice System 2023. (2025). [Dataset]. Ministry of Justice. https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiNGYyNjBjZGUtNjY5ZS00ZGM0LWFhNWQtY2Y5MjhjNDhkNzMzIiwidCI6ImM2ODc0NzI4LTcxZTYtNDFmZS1hOWUxLTJlOGMzNjc3NmFkOCIsImMiOjh9

FBI Data Crime Explorer . (n.d.). [Dataset]. FBI. https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/arrest

Steffensmeier, D., Harris, C. T., & Painter-Davis, N. (2015). Gender and arrests for larceny, fraud, forgery, and embezzlement: Conventional or occupational property crime offenders?. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(3), 205-217.

Benson, M. L., & Gottschalk, P. (2015). Gender and white-collar crime in Norway: An empirical study of media reports. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 43(4), 535-552.

Blickle, G., Schlegel, A., Fassbender, P., & Klein, U. (2006). Some personality correlates of business white‐collar crime. Applied Psychology, 55(2), 220-233.

Steffensmeier, D. J., Schwartz, J., & Roche, M. (2013). Gender and twenty-first-century corporate crime: Female involvement and the gender gap in Enron-era corporate frauds. American Sociological Review, 78(3), 448-476.

Diviák, T., Coutinho, J. A., & Stivala, A. D. (2020). A Man’s world? Comparing the structural positions of men and women in an organized criminal network. Crime, Law and Social Change, 74(5), 547-569.

Isom, Y. (2019). Prostitution and gender disparity in arrests. The Encyclopedia of Women and Crime, 1-5.

Cusick, L., Kinnell, H., Brooks-Gordon, B., & Campbell, R. (2009). Wild guesses and conflated meanings? Estimating the size of the sex worker population in Britain. Critical Social Policy, 29(4), 703-719.

Abel, G. M., Fitzgerald, L. J., & Brunton, C. (2009). The impact of decriminalisation on the number of sex workers in New Zealand. Journal of Social Policy, 38(3), 515-531.

Farley, M., Cotton, A., Lynne, J., Zumbeck, S., Spiwak, F., Reyes, M. E., Alvarez, D., & Sezgin, U. (2004). Prostitution and Trafficking in Nine Countries. Journal of Trauma Practice, 2(3–4), 33–74. https://doi.org/10.1300/J189v02n03_03

*There are some significant issues with the FBI data (e.g., not all agencies/states report all of their data), but I've tried to minimize the impact of this by looking at a large time frame so that we can still see the patterns in the data.

[evidence-based-activism]

lots of craziness in the comments and reblogs

https://www.tumblr.com/womenarehuman/779777503674908672?source=share

Not sure what you're looking for from me, Anon!

The comments I glanced at (I'm not going to read hundreds of responses!) appear to be claiming that humans can change sex.

This is inaccurate for the simple fact that humans cannot transition from producing sperm to ova (or vice versa). Since sex is defined by the gamete produced (or that would have been produced if the organism were healthy), this means that humans cannot change sex.

Further, humans cannot undo whatever process of sexual differentiation (i.e., Wolffian or Müllerian) they underwent as an embryo. Any aesthetic changes undertaken to reduce sex dysphoria do not reverse the permanent and numerous forms of sexual dimorphism present in humans.

See the following posts for more information and sources:

Human sex is binary and the process of sexual differentiation.

Human sexual dimorphism.

The rest of my postmodernism masterlist.

[evidence-based-activism]

men have significantly faster reaction times than women.

So, in general, no.

This 2011 review of research [1] found that gender differences in reaction time depend on the type of test. Males performed faster on some tests, females performed faster on others, and on others there was no difference. Further, the size of these differences was extraordinarily small (e.g., milliseconds). Not seeing the same results across multiple testing modalities suggests the observed differences are likely spurious.

Further, this 2006 meta-analysis on 21 studies over a 73-year period [2] found that the sex difference in "simple visual reaction time" has decreased over the past seventy years. The gap is also considerably lower outside of the USA. Together, this suggests that, like many other purported sex differences, the observed gap is the result of cultural differences. They specifically suggest that women's increasing participation in sports could account for both the historical gap and the closing trend.

An additional confounding factor was proposed in 2006 [3] which found "women were initially slower than men, but became faster than men across a block." After the first two trials within a block, the gender difference in simple visual reaction time disappeared. They also describe how "women, although initially slower, were also initially more accurate." Suggesting that "men are less cautious than women when approaching a new task." So, in other words, this is – again – likely a result of differences in gendered socialization that encourage women to be more cautious and careful than men.

Furthermore, the utility of reaction times is an open question, even within psychological research [4]. In the "real world" there is little evidence of any meaningful differences in reaction time. For example, there were no gender differences in reaction time in a driving simulator [5], between male and female police academy students [6], or for emergency medical workers [7].

The only scenario in which this may be relevant is in the most elite sprinting sports. Even then, the evidence is mixed. Some evidence suggests men may have a faster reaction time to the sprinting events; other research contests this. Some suggests they do, but only under specific circumstances. Other evidence suggests the point is moot since initial reaction time isn't correlated with performance; other work disputes that. [8-9] (Or is the observed difference not due to reaction time at all, and instead a side effect of some other known physical sex difference?)

Ultimately, there is little evidence supporting the idea that men have faster reaction times than women. Observed differences are likely an artifact of research design and/or a result of gendered socialization. Most importantly, there is even less evidence of any “real-world" impacts, with the only possible concern being for the most elite athletes in very specific speed sports.

References under the cut:

Roivainen, E. (2011). Gender differences in processing speed: A review of recent research. Learning and Individual differences, 21(2), 145-149.

Silverman, I. W. (2006). Sex differences in simple visual reaction time: A historical meta-analysis. Sex roles, 54, 57-68.

Reimers, S., & Maylor, E. A. (2006). Gender effects on reaction time variability and trial-to-trial performance: reply to Deary and Der (2005). Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 13(3-4), 479-489.

Draheim, C., Mashburn, C. A., Martin, J. D., & Engle, R. W. (2019). Reaction time in differential and developmental research: A review and commentary on the problems and alternatives. Psychological bulletin, 145(5), 508.

Dickerson, A., Gartz Taylor, R., Register, J., & Miller, M. (2024). The impact of age, sex, and position on visual-motor processing speed and reaction time as measured by the Vision CoachTM. Occupational therapy in health care, 38(1), 26-41.

Marković, S., Vučković, G., & Janković, R. (2019). Simple visual reaction time in students of Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies. Безбедност, 61(1), 25-39.

Ordudari, Z., & Habibi, E. (2024). The Relationship between Job Stress and Reaction Time in Emergency Staff. Journal of Health, 15(1), 124-134.

Tønnessen, E., Haugen, T., & Shalfawi, S. A. (2013). Reaction time aspects of elite sprinters in athletic world championships. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 27(4), 885-892.

Pilianidis, T., Kasabalis, A., Mantzouranis, N., & Mavvidis, A. (2012). Start reaction time and performance at the sprint events in the Olympic Games. Kinesiology, 44(1), 67-72.

[evidence-based-activism]

I know where you stand on tone-policing women’s conversations and I agree, but I do think that posts like this and the replies underneath just obscure the rational argument and defence for women’s spaces.

https://www.tumblr.com/womenarehuman/780176154178043904?source=share

I'm not sure what your goal here is, Anon.

If these women were making official statements (e.g., press releases for an official feminist organization, contacting government representatives, etc.), then I'd agree that different language and tone should be used.

But they aren't making such statements; they are making anonymous posts on a social media platform. I don't think women should be required to be rational and polite and proper 24/7. This plays into the expectation that all women are responsible for the perception of Women-As-A-Whole, expecting them to constantly perform and self-monitor in a way men simply aren't expected to do.

So are they going to convince an opponent of their point of view with such posts? No. But I highly doubt that was their intention in making this post in the first place. It's much more likely they are simply seeking out already like-minded women to commiserate with.

Further, the "rational argument and defense for women's spaces" will persist no matter how many rude posts are made about the topic. The underlying argument itself is strong and well-reasoned; it will withstand poor representation.

[evidence-based-activism]

(Same anon about physical punishment) Also people not only are on pro of it with children but also adults. I remember in my ethics class someone was saying there are countries where thieves get their hands mutilated and it was good because it made crime lower in their country since the law was made. I looked it up but I don't find something like that.

(For context: this was a follow-up to this ask about physical discipline for children.)

I can't find relevant research about the impacts of corporal punishment on adults, likely because it is a fairly rare phenomenon. However, there is research on a related topic: the effectiveness of deterrence.

In summary, the idea behind deterrence is that increasing either the certainty or severity of punishment for criminal acts will decrease the frequency of crime. In short, it suggests that increasing the "cost" of crime will dissuade people from committing it. [1]

Corporal punishment (particularly severe and permanent punishments as you describe) could be characterized as an extreme form of deterrence, specifically aimed at increasing the severity of punishment.

So, does increasing the severity of criminal sanctions reduce criminal behavior? No.

This 2013 review [1] indicates there is little evidence that crime rates respond to the severity of criminal sanctions, specifically indicating "there is far more empirical support for the deterrent effect of changes in the certainty of punishment than changes in the severity of punishment" [emphasis mine].

This 2016 review of reviews [2] indicated there was "no evidence of any effect" of sentence severity.

This 2017 review [3] indicates the same; finding little support for the idea that sanction severity reduced crime. Further, they also find no evidence of a deterrent effect of capital punishment, noting that the research finding such an effect shares several crucial methodological flaws.

This 2021 meta-analysis of 116 studies [4] found "custodial sanctions have no effect on reoffending," as compared to non-custodial sanctions. In other words, the more severe sentence did not reduce crime.

These findings are further supported by [5-8] and were endorsed by the US National Institute of Justice in 2016 [9].

So, in summary, more severe sanctions do not reduce criminal behavior. While this has not been directly assessed for corporal punishment, there's no evidence to suggest it would be any more effective, particularly given the dubious support for the death penalty (which could be considered the most severe form of corporal punishment).

I hope this helps!

References under the cut:

Nagin, D. S. (2013). Deterrence: A review of the evidence by a criminologist for economists. Annu. Rev. Econ., 5(1), 83-105.

Perry, A. E. (2016). Sentencing and deterrence. What works in crime prevention and rehabilitation: Lessons from systematic reviews, 169-191.

Chalfin, A., & McCrary, J. (2017). Criminal deterrence: A review of the literature. Journal of Economic Literature, 55(1), 5-48.

Petrich, D. M., Pratt, T. C., Jonson, C. L., & Cullen, F. T. (2021). Custodial sanctions and reoffending: A meta-analytic review. Crime and justice, 50(1), 353-424.

Durlauf, S. N., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). Imprisonment and crime: Can both be reduced?. Criminology & Public Policy, 10(1), 13-54.

Loughran, T. A., Paternoster, R., & Weiss, D. B. (2015). Deterrence. The handbook of criminological theory, 50-74.

Nagin, D. S. (2018). Deterrent effects of the certainty and severity of punishment. In Deterrence, Choice, and Crime, Volume 23 (pp. 157-185). Routledge.

Mears, D. P., & Cochran, J. C. (2018). Progressively tougher sanctioning and recidivism: Assessing the effects of different types of sanctions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 55(2), 194-241.

Five Things About Deterrence. (2016). National Institute of Justice. https://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf.

[evidence-based-activism]

whoever runs this page, i'm in love with you. excellent work.

Thank you!! This is sweet!

[evidence-based-activism]

thoughts on this “equality has gone too far” discourse

https://www.instagram.com/p/DHC_6eQJDsD/?img_index=5&igsh=MThlNDZnYWh5MGYweA==

(Also for the other Anon who sent this same link.)

This is based on the idea that men have suddenly become more conservative than women, which is not supported by evidence. (See: this post and this post to start with.)

Instead, men have been consistently more conservative than women for decades. The gender-based ideology gap may be widening (evidence for this depends on how you are measuring the gap), but this is a very slow process, not a recent "Gen Z" change.

The fact that younger men are more likely to say feminism has "gone too far" is not – in and of itself – evidence that they are more conservative than their predecessors. Rather, it suggests that this is the most recent justification for their sexist worldviews. Men have always had "reasons" why men should retain power in society, from "God made us this way" to "too many responsibilities hurt the fragile feminine physique" to "Feminism is hurting men", their arguments change, but the goal is the same.

In reference to their argument itself, we have hard evidence (see my masterlists) showing men still hold disproportionate power in society. As such, feminism cannot have possibly "gone too far" as it has not yet rectified the power imbalance it is addressing.

Finally, the slideshow makes the argument that men resist feminism because they are thinking in terms of a "zero-sum game" where improvements in the condition of women cannot also benefit men. Now, as they indicated, this is not an entirely accurate view. I've discussed some studies before showing how increasing gender equality often improves the material conditions for both women and men.

However, I think the idea that feminism has to benefit men is a disservice to the movement. It's not entirely possible to ensure. While feminism certainly isn't causing harm to men, it is working to dismantle a social structure that affords them disproportionate privilege. Loss of privilege (i.e., equalizing conditions with a previously suppressed group) can feel like harm to the privileged. Despite that, the change is both necessary and moral.

It's the same issue present in abusive relationships, just on a macro-scale. The abusive man is afforded many privileges (e.g., fewer chores, less compromising, etc.) through his abusive behavior. The loss of those privileges (through the dismantling of his abusive relationship) upsets and angers him, but that does not mean the privilege loss is an act of harm. In much the same way, men used to greater social, economic, and political control will be upset and angry as that power wanes. The change is still moral.

[evidence-based-activism]

the reason women attempt suicide more is due to seeking attention not because they’re really wanting to die.

First, this is not correct. See this post for details, specifically the sources on case fatality and "intent to die".

Second, even if this were true (which, again, it is not), that would simply suggest people are failing to provide women with adequate "attention" (i.e., mental health support, socioeconomic help, emotional labor, etc.) such that they are driven to such extreme means to obtain help.

[evidence-based-activism]

hello, just want to say I love the work you're doing and I think it's essential to our movement.

I wanted to ask something about the biology and culture of human sexuality. I read something online that really bothered me 'rape and sexual assault are only traumatizing because there is a puritanical culture around sex' and that it happens all the times with animals and female animals don't consider it an issue, often passively accepting after a struggle. And that if humans didnt have culture rape wouldn't be as much of a problem, and that it is beneficial for the species from an evolutionary perspective. And there's always been this disturbing presence of rape in the animal kingdom, which makes me feel like it's some kind of inevitability that females across species will have to suffer through. And that is just so fucking defeating, even though I'm rather skeptical of that there are enough examples of it everywhere.

And there are other things like some kind of sexual power dynamic supposedly being baked into our DNA, which follows the animal patterns of active male and passive female, and other patterns of control. And the way many male animals show dominance to even other males using penetration, the way human males make up sex hierarchies by putting the weakest male in the womans role when women arent present, is the act biologically wired to be interpreted as dominating? Because It's honestly so demoralizing to think about. I know biology isn't everything or even half of everything, but the way the sexes evolved made violation of the female an extremely easy default followed by many species. I can't quite describe the almost existential horror that comes with realizing the very real biological roots of patriarchy. Males have both the ability and incentive to wreak absolute havoc on the other half of their own species in a way we cant to them, and we just have to live with that.

I think I'm rambling sorry. I'm having a crisis over it all. I hope at least some of it makes sense.

Hello! I'm glad you like my blog! I'm sorry you're having a difficult time!

I've had similar crises in the past (e.g., when I found data showing about 1 in 3 men will just openly admit to abusing women). I've found the best remedy is to remember how far women have come in such a short time. (In some areas of the world. I focus on the USA here.) Just a couple of generations ago, women couldn't have their own bank accounts, marital rape was legal, and pregnant women weren't protected from employment discrimination. A couple of generations before that, women had no right to vote and no right to access effective birth control. There are countless other advancements that your grandmothers likely lived to see enacted. We have a long way to go – and that is demoralizing – but we've already come so far – and that's reassuring. [1]

---

I also wanted to address the topics you specifically mentioned, as I hope that may help you as well.

First, the idea that rape is "only" traumatizing because of culture is common in anti-feminist spaces, but it is not based in reality. Evidence for this:

Women exhibited trauma symptoms to marital rape even before marital rape was legally or publicly recognized as possible [2, 3]. In other words, the surrounding culture taught women that marital rape wasn't possible, and yet women who experienced this violation were still traumatized.

Children raised in an environment where abuse is normalized, such as in organized and ritual child sexual abuse, still exhibit trauma symptoms [4]. Again, this indicates that people do not need to be "taught" that rape is traumatizing; it simply is.

Women who are sexually victimized while in cults exhibit trauma symptoms despite their purported "consent" and the microculture normalizing this exploitation [5].

Girls who are sexually victimized in child marriages are traumatized even in cultures where child marriages are the norm [6, 7].

Further, the reason why sexual violence may be uniquely traumatizing to humans (i.e., why this trauma extends beyond violent assaults) is because sexual violence threatens the victim's self-concept. In other words, it likely isn't human culture that is behind sexual trauma, but the human sense of self. Considering the concept of a self is absolutely vital to humanity, you cannot eliminate the impact of sexual violence without also changing the fundamental nature of humanity.

---

Second, the idea that rape is "beneficial for the species from an evolutionary perspective" is also not accurate. First, this is a bit of a misunderstanding of evolution and natural selection. In particular, there is not some sort of "optimal state" that a species is advancing towards. Put simply, evolution is the process through which certain traits become more or less common over generations. To be clear, these traits emerge at random, not through intention. A trait that makes it more likely for an organism to reproduce (or survive to reproductive age) will result in an organism with that trait having more children than an organism without that trait. (Assuming there is a degree of competition; in other words, it must not be possible for both organisms to maximally reproduce simultaneously.) Over many generations, this means the advantageous trait will become much more common in the population. This eventually results in the emergence of a "new" species which exhibits that particular trait. [8]

As such, a trait is not beneficial "for the species;" instead, it benefits specific individuals’ reproductive success. The characteristics of the species are a neutral result of the competition between favorable traits. Further, when it comes to traits involving sexual reproduction, traits that are favorable for male reproductive success (i.e., allow males to father more successful children) are often unfavorable for female reproductive success (i.e., reduce their number of successful children). This is because there are often opposing biological forces for male and female organisms. [9]

That being said, I've discussed in the past why I am skeptical of evolutionary theories to explain human behavior in the past, which applies here as well. In summary, you fall into the "just-so" trap, assuming that because things ended up like this, they had to end up like this, which is not an accurate assumption. I've also discussed the theories of the patriarchy's origins in the past, to explain the issues with a purely biological explanation.

My favorite counter-example is bonobos, who are as genetically close to humans as chimpanzees and do not exhibit male-on-female sexual aggression [10]. Instead, male violence related to reproduction is limited to (relatively less severe) male-on-male competitions. We do not know the reason for the differences in chimpanzee, bonobo, and human reproductive behaviors, but the existence of bonobos indicates that male violence against females is not inherently required for the persistence of a species.

---

Further, making comparisons between sexually aggressive animal behaviors and human sexual violence is difficult. It is unclear if animals have any concept of consent at all, and even if some do, they could not communicate this to us. Since rape is defined as sex without consent, this necessarily limits our ability to classify animal behaviors as such.

For example, some animals exhibit pursuit behaviors, where males will chase after a female and whoever "catches" her copulates with her. Is this an example of sexually aggressive behavior, like a human rapist chasing down his victim? Or is the female intentionally partaking in a competition between the males, so as to mate with (and obtain offspring from) the fastest/best of the group?

Or another example, some female animals will mate with multiple males in succession in order to optimize her reproductive success. Often the male animal she has just mated with will attempt to prevent further matings, so as to optimize his reproductive success. This can involve aggressive behaviors like blocking and guarding, which are not intended to but can sometimes cause injury to the female. Should this still be classified as sexually aggressive behavior?

The ambiguity here makes this sort of research difficult, both to complete and to interpret. That being said, a recent review of 244 articles [11] cast a broad net, looking for any "male behavior towards a female during the pericopulatory [i.e., around copulation] period that can be costly for the female" which they termed "sexual disturbance." They ultimately concluded that "sexual disturbance and its associated costs for females are frequent in a relatively low number of mammalian taxa."

They also found that "retention types were almost twice as common as aggression types," where retention types refer to "behaviors that do not have aggressive components (i.e. they are not intended to harm the female), but whose function is to try to retain her in order to mate." Further, only 11% of the studies documenting sexual disturbance described the behaviors as having high costs to females, where high cost included (but was not limited to) overtly aggressive behaviors.

Further, they document the presence of many "behavioral strategies developed by females to reduce their exposure to male aggression." This makes sense given these behaviors would help optimize the female's reproductive success, and were therefore passed on to a larger portion of the children.

Finally, the species with greater sexual disturbance were "also characterized by high levels of polygyny and sexual dimorphism." This is relevant because recent research indicates that many mammals do not exhibit size sexual dimorphism or the female is larger than the male [12].

While this research is by no means settled (and reviews on non-mammalian species would be helpful), this does suggest that sexually aggressive behaviors (or what we perceive as sexually aggressive behaviors) are not overly common among mammals.

We also know that there are many other mate selection behaviors (e.g., courtship rituals, male-on-male aggression, sperm-based adaptations, etc.) that have developed in many species [13]. Once again, this indicates male sexual violence is not necessary for the persistence of a species.

---

I'm not positive what you mean by "sexual power dynamics" in our DNA. It's possible the earlier linked post about the origins of the patriarchy may address this? You may also be interested in my post about how biology does not explain gender stereotypes.

The only other topic I think this may be referencing is the idea that the "active sperm" competes to fertilize the "passive egg," but new research has indicated this is not correct [14-17]. Instead, the female reproductive system, including the egg, plays a significant role in "choosing" the successful sperm.

---

For penetration among animals, I think you are referring to the theory that same-sex sexual behavior among animals exists to establish hierarchical/dominance relationships. This theory does exist and there is some evidence for it in some species, but it is not universally accepted and almost certainly does not universally apply [18, 19]. Other explanations for this behavior include social bonding and sexual "practice," among others.

That being said, I do believe there's a cultural context (for humans) surrounding penetration that positions it as a type of or expression of dominance. As with many other aspects of gender, this context is likely entirely (or mostly) socially constructed.

I bring up the possibility of it being "mostly" constructed because the invasiveness* of the act of being penetrated versus the act of penetration does lend itself towards the creation of a power dynamic, much like men's greater body mass and strength lends itself towards a power dynamic. That being said, the mere existence of a framework for a power dynamic does not inherently suggest this dynamic does or must exist.

*Meaning, literally, "involving entry into the living body (as by incision or by insertion of an instrument)" [20].

---

Otherwise, I think you may like my post on the theories of the origin of the patriarchy. Of potentially particular interest is the fact that reproductive structures are identical between humans, bonobos, and chimpanzees and and sexual dimorphism is broadly similar between chimpanzees and bonobos [21, 22] and either similar or less present in humans [23]. (Also note that female group corporation is essential to bonobo social structure [24].)

Ultimately, this suggests that our biological differences may facilitate but do not inevitability lead to patriarchal control. (Put another way: the fact that things have turned out this way does not mean they had to turn out this way.)

I do understand you and no apologies are needed! I hope this information may help you!

References under the cut:

Detailed timeline. (2024). National Women’s History Alliance. https://nationalwomenshistoryalliance.org/resources/womens-rights-movement/detailed-timeline/

Whatley, M. A. (1993). For better or worse: The case of marital rape. Violence and victims, 8, 29-29.

Frieze, I. H. (1983). Investigating the causes and consequences of marital rape. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 8(3), 532-553.

Schröder, J., Nick, S., Richter-Appelt, H., & Briken, P. (2018). Psychiatric impact of organized and ritual child sexual abuse: Cross-sectional findings from individuals who report being victimized. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(11), 2417.

Dayan, H. (2018). Sexual abuse and charismatic cults. Aggression and violent behavior, 41, 25-31.

Burgess, R. A., Jeffery, M., Odero, S. A., Rose-Clarke, K., & Devakumar, D. (2022). Overlooked and unaddressed: a narrative review of mental health consequences of child marriages. PLOS global public health, 2(1), e0000131.

Yendork, J. S., Kliewer, W., & Cyrus, J. W. (2025). Child marriage and well‐being in Central and Western Africa: A scoping review of costs and potential benefits for girls. Journal of Adolescence, 97(1), 85-101.

Ayala, F. J. (2025, March 28). Evolution. Encyclopaedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory

Parker, G. A. (2006). Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 361(1466), 235-259.

Mouginot, M., Wilson, M. L., Desai, N., & Surbeck, M. (2024). Differences in expression of male aggression between wild bonobos and chimpanzees. Current Biology, 34(8), 1780-1785.

Cassini, M. H. (2021). Sexual aggression in mammals. Mammal Review, 51(2), 247-255.

Tombak, K. J., Hex, S. B., & Rubenstein, D. I. (2024). New estimates indicate that males are not larger than females in most mammal species. Nature Communications, 15(1), 1872.

Animal reproductive strategies | organismal biology. (n.d.). Georgia Tech Biological Sciences. https://organismalbio.biosci.gatech.edu/growth-and-reproduction/animal-reproduction-i-mating-systems/

Soto-Heras, S., Sakkas, D., & Miller, D. J. (2023). Sperm selection by the oviduct: perspectives for male fertility and assisted reproductive technologies. Biology of reproduction, 108(4), 538-552.

Steck, T., Würfel, W., Becker, W., & Albert, P. J. (1991). Serial scintigraphic imaging for visualization of passive transport processes in the human Fallopian tube. Human Reproduction, 6(9), 1186-1191.

Ellington, J. E., Evenson, D. P., Wright Jr, R. W., Jones, A. E., Schneider, C. S., Hiss, G. A., & Brisbois, R. S. (1999). Higher-quality human sperm in a sample selectively attach to oviduct (fallopian tube) epithelial cells in vitro. Fertility and Sterility, 71(5), 924-929.

Martin, R. D. (2018, August 23). The idea that sperm race to the egg is just another macho myth | Aeon Essays. Aeon. https://aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-sperm-race-to-the-egg-is-just-another-macho-myth

Balfour, V. L., & Shuker, D. M. (2020). Same-sex sexual behaviour. Current Biology, 30(22), R1345-R1346.

Gómez, J. M., González-Megías, A., & Verdú, M. (2023). The evolution of same-sex sexual behaviour in mammals. Nature Communications, 14(1), 5719.

“Invasive.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invasive.

Parish, A. R. (1996). Female relationships in bonobos (Pan paniscus) Evidence for bonding, cooperation, and female dominance in a male-philopatric species. Hu Nat, 7(1), 61-96.

Smith, R. J., & Jungers, W. L. (1997). Body mass in comparative primatology. Journal of Human evolution, 32(6), 523-559.

Lassek, W. D., & Gaulin, S. J. (2022). Substantial but misunderstood human sexual dimorphism results mainly from sexual selection on males and natural selection on females. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 859931.

Furuichi, T. (2011). Female contributions to the peaceful nature of bonobo society. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 20(4), 131-142.

[evidence-based-activism]

thoughts on this? What are the implications? https://www.tumblr.com/podcactuses/778567502356774912?source=share

This is a chart illustrating the fairly consistent finding that men and uneducated (i.e., no higher degree) people are more conservative than women and educated people. For example, these trends are also shown in the American National Election Study data [1] and the Pew Research Center [2], which are both considered to be reputable and representative sources of data on the American public.

I'm ... not positive what you're asking in terms of "implications." I mean, this data shows us something we essentially already knew. (It is, of course, interesting to have data for these specific topics, but it's not new.)

This difference is certainly linked to conservatives’ disparagement of higher education, but this is also not limited to one demographic. Republican politicians perform better in uneducated populations across the demographic board; therefore, they are inclined to preserve uneducated populations.

I hope this answers your question?

References under the cut:

American National Election Studies. 2021. ANES 2020 Time Series Study Full Release [dataset and documentation]. July 19, 2021 version. www.electionstudies.org

Nadeem, R. (2021, November 9). Beyond red vs. Blue: The political typology. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/11/09/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology-2/

[evidence-based-activism]

https://www.tumblr.com/ms-hells-bells/777964460410290176/its-just-straight-up-untrue-though-like-i-feel

Is this true?

I'm not sure what you're specifically asking is true or not, but here is some additional information on this topic.

The original study being referenced [1] is from 2018 and claimed to find that "sex differences in ... pursuit of STEM degrees rose with ... gender equality."

This study was almost immediately (~3 months later, which is very fast in academia) criticized as being an artifact of how we measure gender equity [2]. In short, this article explains how the Gender Gap Index (GGI), which was the equality metric used in that paper, only considers a subsection of equality indicators.

A different, earlier, paper [3] helps illustrate this further, as they found nation-level gender stereotypes concerning science and math predicted sex differences in 8th-grade science and mathematics achievement. This sort of equality measure (i.e., concerning social attitudes rather than broad economic or political indicators) was not considered nor related to the equality measure in the first paper [2].

Further, the authors of that study [1] were later required to publish a corrigendum [4] to clarify how they measured the "graduation gap" since it was repeatedly described as "ambiguous." They claim that their scale measures "propensity" to graduate in STEM. Their explanation for this measurement is inadequate, as they fail to prove it has construct validity.

This measurement was – rightfully – criticized [5] as inappropriate both conceptually and contextually. That is, their measurement purports to measure individual predispositions, but attempts to derive this from group-level data. In addition, they then compare this to the GGI, which measures outcomes not "propensities," meaning their custom "scale" was ill-matched for their outcome data. They also reiterate the issues with using the GGI for this analysis. They show the initial results are not robust to changes in predictor or outcome scales, indicating the results are spurious.

This information (along with some other methodological flaws) is what the OP of that post was referring to, and is an accurate description of the events.

---

Additional research further contests the original paper's argument:

This 2020 article [6] found the "stereotype associating math to men is stronger in more egalitarian and developed countries," which can entirely explain any evidence of a "gender-equality paradox".

This 2022 systemic literature review [7] of 26 studies further supports this theory, finding gender stereotypes drive the gender gap in STEM. (This was not specifically about the gender paradox.)

These findings were again supported in 2023 by an additional literature review [8]. (This was also not specifically about the gender paradox.)

However, these studies still did not directly challenge the existence of a gender-paradox in STEM, which further research [9] suggests does not exist at all. This 2023 article found that "when limiting to the sample of home countries to those considered in prior literature, I obtain robust evidence of a gender-equity paradox ... however, when I consider the full sample of home countries available, women’s relative representation in STEM no longer appears to decrease as equity increases." In other words, the apparent paradox may be entirely non-existent – the result of inadequate research methodology.

And indeed, this 2024 review of 25 studies [10] indicates "there is no consistent support for ... gender equality paradox." (Unfortunately, they also found that simply increasing gender equality does not, in and of itself, increase women's representation in STEM, but given the data on stereotype strength described in the earlier studies [6-8], this is not necessarily surprising.) This review also subtly rebukes the original article, concluding with, "Researchers should exercise caution when using theories articulating individual psychological mechanisms to explain cross-cultural phenomena."

---

Ultimately, this indicates there is no consistent evidence for a "paradox" in gender differences in STEM. Further, women's lower participation in STEM as compared to men can be explained by gender stereotypes, not innate differences between men and women.

I hope this helps!

References under the cut:

Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological science, 29(4), 581-593.

Mastroianni, A., & McCoy, D. (2018, May 17). Countries with less gender equity have more women in stem—Huh? Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/voices/countries-with-less-gender-equity-have-more-women-in-stem-huh/

Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N., Lindner, N. M., Devos, T., Ayala, A., ... & Greenwald, A. G. (2009). National differences in gender–science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10593-10597.

Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2020). " The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education": Corrigendum.

Richardson, S. S., Reiches, M. W., Bruch, J., Boulicault, M., Noll, N. E., & Shattuck-Heidorn, H. (2020). Is there a gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM)? Commentary on the study by Stoet and Geary (2018). Psychological Science, 31(3), 338-341.

Breda, T., Jouini, E., Napp, C., & Thebault, G. (2020). Gender stereotypes can explain the gender-equality paradox. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(49), 31063-31069.

Verdugo-Castro, S., García-Holgado, A., & Sánchez-Gómez, M. C. (2022). The gender gap in higher STEM studies: A systematic literature review. Heliyon, 8(8).

Schmader, T. (2023). Gender inclusion and fit in STEM. Annual Review of Psychology, 74(1), 219-243.

Jergins, W. (2023). Gender equity and the gender gap in STEM: is there really a paradox?. Journal of Population Economics, 36(4), 3029-3056.

Guo, J., Marsh, H. W., Parker, P. D., & Hu, X. (2024). Cross-Cultural Patterns of Gender Differences in STEM: Gender Stratification, Gender Equality and Gender-Equality Paradoxes. Educational Psychology Review, 36(2), 37.

[evidence-based-activism]

there is so much silliness in and under this post, from both the feminists and MRAs. It’s a lot of common points too, what do you think? Or would you respond to them on the actual post?

https://www.tumblr.com/genderisareligion/778958810676150272?source=share

You sent me the original post, so I have no idea what specific comments you are referring to. (There are hundreds of re-blogs/responses, Anon!)

My male violence and sex industry masterlists probably address whichever comments you're referring to.

[evidence-based-activism]

Something that I don't think you've talked about in your blog is physical punishment. So many people are in favor of hitting children, I've heard that there are many studies against it but a lot of people say it worked for them. It could be that it works in the sense of stopping the child from doing something short-term but it has repercussions long term?

Hello! Hopefully, this helps, Anon!

Physical Punishment is Correlated with Negative Outcomes

Back in 2002, a meta-analytic review [1] concluded that "parental corporal punishment was associated with ... aggression and lower levels of moral internalization and mental health." This review excluded any studies that may have included physical abuse (as they defined it at the time), meaning the punishments could not have resulted in injury to the child. However, they also concluded that physical discipline and physical abuse were not "distinct phenomena ... [but] two points along a continuum." Their findings on immediate compliance were mixed; some studies found increases in immediate compliance, and others found decreases in compliance. Furthermore, they found routinely negative long-term outcomes; in particular, they found decreased levels of long-term compliance and internalization of morals.

A 2010 follow-up review [2] found that "there is very little evidence that corporal punishment is more effective than other techniques in securing immediate child compliance." In contrast, "a consistent body of evidence reveals that more corporal punishment by parents is associated with less long-term compliance and pro-social behavior and with more aggression and antisocial behavior."

That same year, a large population-based, birth cohort study [3] found even frequent use (defined as more than 2 times) of "minor forms" of physical discipline “increases risk for increased child aggressive behavior." They also adjusted for many confounding and demographic variables to show that those differences could not account for the differences in aggression.

This 2016 meta-analysis [4] confirmed these negative associations in an analysis based only on "spanking." However, they also note that research has found "spanking can escalate into physical abuse," which was confirmed by their analysis.

Jumping ahead to 2021, a narrative review of 69 prospective longitudinal studies [5] concluded that physical punishment is harmful to children. They found physical punishment: (1) "consistently predicts increases in child behavior problems over time", (2) "is not associated with positive outcomes over time", (3) "increases the risk of involvement with child protective services", (4) was only administered in response to externalizing behaviors, (5) "predicts worsening behavior over time in quasi-experimental studies", (6) was associated with "detrimental child outcomes ... across child and parent characteristics", (7) was possibly associated with a "dose–response relationship." Their methodology and the studies they included in their review provided support for casual inference, suggesting that it was the physical discipline itself that caused poorer outcomes.

This 2023 systemic review [6] of 34 articles examining specifically maternal discipline found that in "94% of the studies, there were significant associations between maternal spanking and corporal punishment with deteriorated child behavior and development, concurrently or later."

A 2024 meta-analytic review [7] of 35 studies found corporal punishment was significantly associated with a spectrum of violent behaviors. They also found evidence of a dose-response relationship, meaning more severe or frequent physical punishment associated with progressively worse outcomes.

Furthermore, this 2017 review [8] and 2022 systemic review [9] on physical discipline in schools found similarly negative effects of such discipline around the world.

Finally, this 2021 meta-analysis [10] of 971 studies on "harsh parenting" (which includes but is not limited to physical discipline) is associated with worse outcomes around the world (i.e., cultural differences did not eliminate the relationship). But this study brings up an important question: How much of this effect is due to the act of physical discipline itself and how much is due to the general parenting styles and philosophies employed by parents who spank their children?

Effect of Authoritarian Parenting

There is some evidence that authoritarian parenting (i.e., parenting that maintains a high degree of control over the children and often employs harsh discipline) is associated with negative child outcomes.

This 2010 longitudinal study [11] found that "adolescents from authoritarian families were notably incompetent and maladjusted." They also indicated that "verbal hostility and psychological control" were the "most detrimental" aspects of this parenting style, although "severe physical punishment and arbitrary discipline" were also associated with poorer outcomes. In summary, coercive and controlling parenting methods were associated with much worse child outcomes.

A 2017 meta-analysis of 1435 studies [12] found that harsh control, psychological control, and authoritarian parenting were associated with externalizing problems (i.e., disruptive, antisocial, or otherwise "external" behavioral/psychological issues). In this analysis, harsh control (which included but was not limited to physical discipline) and psychological control showed the strongest associations with externalizing symptoms.

A 2018 meta-analysis of 428 studies [13] found "the associations of parenting styles with internalizing problems, externalizing problems, and academic achievement" were fairly similar around the world.

And an additional 2023 meta-analysis with "robust national longitudinal data" from Ireland [14] found hostile parenting was a risk factor for mental health symptoms.

So, clearly authoritarian parenting styles are also associated with negative child outcomes.

A Causal Effect of Physical Discipline?

To start with, the 2010 study I mentioned [11] did not find a specific negative (or positive) effect of "spanking", outside of its association with authoritarian parenting and severe physical discipline. However, as mentioned earlier, the 2021 narrative review [5] provided evidence for a causal connection between physical discipline and negative child outcomes. Given this, I decided to look for further evidence of (or a lack of) a causal connection between physical discipline and poorer child outcomes.

First, this 2024 review [15] tried to reconcile the results between three contradictory literature reviews of controlled longitudinal studies.

One of those reviews was the narrative review discussed earlier [5]. They employed a broad inclusion criterion (e.g., including children up to age 18, including all physical punishments except "severe assaults", etc.) which resulted in more studies than prior reviews. Most of the studies they reviewed reported harmful effects of physical punishment, and the method they used (prospective longitudinal studies, propensity score matching, etc.) indicates this is a causal relationship.

One of the other three studies was a 2013 meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies [16]. They excluded studies that concerned child abuse (i.e., serious injuries, legal action, etc.). They found "small but non-trivial long-term relationships" between both spanking and corporal punishment (physical punishment other than spanking) and "externalizing, internalizing behaviors and low cognitive performance." This study suggested there is a causal relationship, but it is likely overshadowed by other factors. (Possibly the psychological control described earlier?)

The last of the three studies was a 2018 meta-analysis [17]. This study employed very strict inclusion criteria, only using studies on children aged 1.5-12 years old and "openhanded or customary spanking." This study was unique in that it employed two valid statistical methods that tend to bias results in opposite directions. Using these methods, they found either a small positive or small negative effect in the expected direction based on the statistical test. This suggests that these effects may be the result of statistical artifacts (i.e., not a true causal effect). However, the strict inclusion criteria limit this finding rather substantially.

Given these contradictory findings, this review [15] attempted to reconcile the differences. Their analysis of more recent studies on "customary spanking" using the same methods employed in [17] also suggested a causal effect of near-zero, with the direction depending on the statistical method. However, they also note that effects were more negative for older children (i.e., older than 7).

This evidence suggests that there may not be a direct causal relationship between spanking and child outcomes. However, if this is true, it is limited to very specific circumstances, namely "customary open-handed spanking" to children aged ~1.5-7 years old.

However, this is still very much up-to-debate. Consider, for example, this 2018 review [18] which argues for the consistency and strength of evidence against spanking. A response to this [19] contested these findings, arguing their evidence was "insufficient for establishing a causal connection" for any type of "disciplinary response to persistent defiance and problem behavior." The authors of the original study [18] then responded [20] to say their arguments provided no "convincing evidence that physical punishment is beneficial to children."

To be clear, however, these researchers are debating the effects of "correctly applied" spanking, likely conducted in the context of authoritative (i.e., not authoritarian) parenting styles. The correlational relationship between spanking and poor child outcomes indicates spanking is at least correlated with other factors that lead to poor child outcomes. Between that, and the evidence that spanking often escalates, we can conclude that it is unlikely most parents who spank their children are doing it "correctly."

Further, the link between "incorrectly applied" physical punishment and poor child outcomes suggests that instead of attempting to "correctly" spank their child (and frequently failing to fulfill these requirements), parents should be looking for a method that is less potentially harmful. In other words, whether there is a causal link between "correctly applied" spanking and poor child outcomes is much less relevant once we take into account the likelihood that (1) most parents who spank their children are not doing it "correctly" and (2) there is evidence of a causal effect of more severe or frequent physical discipline and the psychological control it often accompanies.

Alternatives to Spanking

So, as I suggested, the potential for causing harm to children via spanking means parents should look for alternatives.

There is, unfortunately, insufficient work on this topic. What we have [21] suggests non-physical punishments such as timeouts combined with positive reinforcement is likely to be the most effective and carry the least risk of harm.

For example, this 2025 meta-analysis on 45 studies [22] found positive discipline interventions help improve positive behaviors in children. (Although it is limited in reducing negative behaviors.) A 2021 study [23] found Positive Discipline parenting workshops reduced authoritarian parenting, permissive parenting, and parental stress.

A 2018 review [24] indicated that physical punishment did not show positive behavior changes in the long term, and short-term behavior changes did not exceed that of other non-physical punishments (e.g., timeouts). This was also indicated in the 2010 review [2] discussed earlier.

And an additional 2016 literature review [25] found parenting interventions were effective in reducing physical aggression of parents towards their children and reducing children's behavioral problems.

Together, this suggests that spanking children is not necessary to address short-term or long-term behavior issues in children.

An Ethical Argument

At this point, I'd propose that there is an additional moral argument to be made here. While determining if something causes harm is one of the most vital aspects of determining its morality, it is not the only concern.

For example, simple assault (i.e., minor physical assault or threat of assault without injury) of adults does not often cause significant short- or long-term harm. Despite that, we recognize that unnecessary physical violence towards adults is unethical. I'd argue that the primary reason behind this evaluation is that such assault violates our personal bodily autonomy.

Spanking a child could be conceptualized as a simple assault perpetrated by an adult on a child. As such, I would argue that the same ethical principles guiding our rejection of assault between adults should also be applied to the punishment of children. (Further, this does not take into account the power differential that is inherent to the parent-child dynamic. Since we often consider transgressions that involve a power differential to be worse than ones without, I'd argue that this principle should also be applied in this case.)

Notably, the argument that parents often have to violate the autonomy of children as a necessary byproduct of parenting (e.g., getting children vaccinated when they are too young to consent, setting rules and boundaries for their behavior, etc.) is not relevant in this case, as we have already demonstrated that spanking is not necessary for the well-being of the child.

Conclusion

Physical discipline is correlated with significant negative outcomes for children. This correlation is part of a larger relationship between authoritarian parenting and poor child outcomes.

The question of if this relationship is causal (i.e., if physical discipline causes poorer outcomes in and of itself) is outstanding. Current research suggests a causal relationship is likely for more severe or frequent physical discipline and unlikely for "correctly administered" spankings.

That being said, there is no evidence that spanking (even when "correctly applied") directly benefits children and there are alternative methods to obtain similar or better changes in children's behavior. Given the risks involved with attempting to discipline children via spanking (i.e., incorrect administration, escalation, etc.) using an alternative method is a better option.

Finally, there is an ethical argument concerning the preservation of children's bodily autonomy and recognition of power differentials that also opposes the use of spanking as a punishment.

I hope this helps, Anon!

References under the cut:

Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: a meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological bulletin, 128(4), 539.

Gershoff, E. T. (2010). More harm than good: A summary of scientific research on the intended and unintended effects of corporal punishment on children. Law and contemporary problems, 73(2), 31.

Taylor, C. A., Manganello, J. A., Lee, S. J., & Rice, J. C. (2010). Mothers' spanking of 3-year-old children and subsequent risk of children's aggressive behavior. Pediatrics, 125(5), e1057-e1065.

Gershoff, E. T., & Grogan-Kaylor, A. (2016). Spanking and child outcomes: Old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of family psychology, 30(4), 453.

Heilmann, A., Mehay, A., Watt, R. G., Kelly, Y., Durrant, J. E., van Turnhout, J., & Gershoff, E. T. (2021). Physical punishment and child outcomes: a narrative review of prospective studies. The Lancet, 398(10297), 355-364.

Avezum, M. D. M. D. M., Altafim, E. R. P., & Linhares, M. B. M. (2023). Spanking and corporal punishment parenting practices and child development: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(5), 3094-3111.

Pan, Q., Chen, S., & Qu, Y. (2024). Corporal punishment and violent behavior spectrum: a meta-analytic review. Frontiers in psychology, 15, 1323784.

Gershoff, E. T. (2017). School corporal punishment in global perspective: prevalence, outcomes, and efforts at intervention. Psychology, health & medicine, 22(sup1), 224-239.

Heekes, S. L., Kruger, C. B., Lester, S. N., & Ward, C. L. (2022). A systematic review of corporal punishment in schools: Global prevalence and correlates. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(1), 52-72.

Pinquart, M. (2021). Cultural differences in the association of harsh parenting with internalizing and externalizing symptoms: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 1-14.

Baumrind, D., Larzelere, R. E., & Owens, E. B. (2010). Effects of preschool parents' power assertive patterns and practices on adolescent development. Parenting: Science and practice, 10(3), 157-201.

Pinquart, M. (2017). Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis. Developmental psychology, 53(5), 873.

Pinquart, M., & Kauser, R. (2018). Do the associations of parenting styles with behavior problems and academic achievement vary by culture? Results from a meta-analysis. Cultural diversity & ethnic minority psychology, 24(1), 75.

Katsantonis, I., & Symonds, J. E. (2023). Population heterogeneity in developmental trajectories of internalising and externalising mental health symptoms in childhood: differential effects of parenting styles. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 32, e16.

Larzelere, R. E., Gunnoe, M. L., Pritsker, J., & Ferguson, C. J. (2024). Resolving the Contradictory Conclusions from Three Reviews of Controlled Longitudinal Studies of Physical Punishment: A Meta-Analysis. Marriage & Family Review, 60(7), 395-433.

Ferguson, C. J. (2013). Spanking, corporal punishment and negative long-term outcomes: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Clinical psychology review, 33(1), 196-208.

Larzelere, R. E., Gunnoe, M. L., & Ferguson, C. J. (2018). Improving causal inferences in meta‐analyses of longitudinal studies: Spanking as an illustration. Child Development, 89(6), 2038-2050.

Gershoff, E. T., Goodman, G. S., Miller-Perrin, C. L., Holden, G. W., Jackson, Y., & Kazdin, A. E. (2018). The strength of the causal evidence against physical punishment of children and its implications for parents, psychologists, and policymakers. American Psychologist, 73(5), 626.

Larzelere, R. E., Gunnoe, M. L., Ferguson, C. J., & Roberts, M. W. (2019). The insufficiency of the evidence used to categorically oppose spanking and its implications for families and psychological science: Comment on Gershoff et al.(2018).

Gershoff, E. T., Goodman, G. S., Miller-Perrin, C., Holden, G. W., Jackson, Y., & Kazdin, A. E. (2019). There is still no evidence that physical punishment is effective or beneficial: Reply to Larzelere, Gunnoe, Ferguson, and Roberts (2019) and Rohner and Melendez-Rhodes (2019).

Larzelere, R. E., Reitman, D., Ortiz, C., & Cox Jr, R. B. (2023). Parental punishment: Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. In Ideological and political bias in psychology: Nature, scope, and solutions (pp. 561-583). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Yu, Y., Fang, J., & Chen, H. (2025). A comprehensive three-level meta-analysis of the positive discipline programme: effectiveness and moderating variables. Early Child Development and Care, 1-17.

Carroll, P. (2022). Effectiveness of positive discipline parenting program on parenting style, and child adaptive behavior. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 53(6), 1349-1358.

Sege, R. D., Siegel, B. S., COUNCIL, O. C. A., Flaherty, E. G., Gavril, A. R., Idzerda, S. M., ... & COMMITTEE ON PSYCHOSOCIAL ASPECTS OF CHILD AND FAMILY HEALTH. (2018). Effective discipline to raise healthy children. Pediatrics, 142(6).

Santini, P. M., & Williams, L. C. (2016). Parenting programs to prevent corporal punishment: A systematic review. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 26(63), 121-129.

[evidence-based-activism]

Is this true? https://www.instagram.com/reel/DHfbB4YpLn4/?igsh=MXdiZ2dpYzE3b2JvZA== ik men and women's autonomy are very different but come on is it that vast to the point men physically cannot carry a baby in the same manner as women? Many in the comments are claiming it's what female bodies were made to do and evolution but literally what do males do in order to accommodate their offsprings???

Hello!

So, this is a video of a bunch of men trying to hold a baby on their hip with the assumption that women are "made" to carry a baby on their hips and men are not.

So, first, about half the men in that video do actually manage to hold the baby on their hip like the woman does. Off the bat, this suggests that this is not a result of biology but of practice (i.e., the men who failed are not used to holding babies).

You can also find a bunch of videos that show men holding the baby on their hip. And when they don't, they usually just hold the baby higher up with the baby's legs around their lower rib cage and their arm holding the baby much like the woman does in this video. So men are definitely capable of "accommodating their offsprings."

That being said, I am not aware of any empirical data that compares men and women in this respect and I did look for some. So, if that's what you were hoping for, I'm afraid I don't have any. There are differences in the anatomy of men's and women's hips (with the biggest visible difference being that women's hips are wider and men's are taller), but we don't have evidence of this difference resulting in any significant functional differences* like this.

*With the notable exception of childbirth, which obviously is different between men and women. Further, wider hips in women are a consequence of childbearing, not the reverse.

I hope this helps!