Why “nature intended it this way” is complete nonsense – debunking patriarchal myths

Or: Biology, But Make It Patriarchy

You’re sitting in your favorite café, the city buzzing around you like a living, breathing organism, headlights glinting off rain-slick streets, the scent of espresso curling into the corner of your nose, your matcha perfectly frothed, and suddenly—you hear it again. That phrase, that tired old whisper of supposed truth:“Biologically, men just prefer younger women.”

Ah. Of course. Somewhere, in some dusty corner of evolutionary theory, male unicorns are galloping through the streets, sniffing out virginal witches like life is a scavenger hunt and youth is the ultimate prize. And yet, as the steam curls from your cup and the city hums its clandestine rhythm, you realize: life is never that simple. Not for men. Not for women. Not for anyone who has ever dared to love, to live, to exist beyond the boxes someone else drew.

Old stories dressed up as new words

And yes, it seems I’ve heard it all. The clichés. The “it’s only natural,” the “biology made me do it,” or an ex who actually said, “It’s only natural for a man to sleep with multiple women—he’s just spreading his genes.” That one? Still makes me gag… and giggle a bit too, because honestly, have you noticed how many mediocre guys think their genes are worth spreading? But that is a whole other story.

Pattern? Check. Biology isn’t neutral—it’s a velvet glove hiding a very sharp power grab. Men’s “nature” gets glorified; women’s “nature” gets scrutinized, shamed, restricted, folded neatly into society’s comfort zones. And sometimes, even women—still rocking their Patriarchy Filters—repeat the stories, tiny echoes of a system that wants us smaller, quieter, less dazzling.

But here’s the twist: science exists. Real, messy, fascinating science. And when you strip away the “just biology” and the velvet gloves, a very different story emerges—one that doesn’t shrink women, doesn’t excuse inequality, and doesn’t hand power away on a silver platter. So let’s sip our chai, or whatever you like to sip from your little mug, lean into the city hum, and unpack the most persistent myths we’ve been fed about men, women, desire, and power.

Because yes—biology exists. But myths? Luckily optional.

Debunking some myths

Myth 1: “Men want younger women—it’s biological”

Ah yes, the classic tale: youth equals fertility, and therefore men are hardwired to prefer younger women. First of all—if that were actually true—it would basically prove that, in the eyes of patriarchal logic, women are only valued as birthing machines, nothing more. And that, ladies and gents, is misogyny in its purest form.

Now, luckily, reality is far more complex and interesting—and far less convenient for patriarchal storytelling. Yes, female fertility changes with age (which makes sense, because growing a human inside your body is an Olympic-level biological project), but did you know that male fertility also shifts over time? Sperm quality, motility, and DNA integrity all decline, especially after 35-40. Yet somehow, society only lectures women on 'ticking clocks', while men’s aging bodies skate by under a blissful invisibility cloak.

And yes, the animal kingdom argument also likes to show up in those conversations, usually with a smug grin: “Look at nature—males always go for the young females, so it’s just biology, right?” Well, let’s unpack that. First, humans aren’t lions or gorillas—we don’t mate in heat cycles under the savannah sun. Second, in many species, males compete for access to females, true… but if you really follow the logic, it would mean women should be choosing the healthiest, most fit males to optimize offspring too, in other words, younger men, not older men! Suddenly, the whole “biology says men are entitled” story looks… well, extremely convenient.

And here’s the real tea: attraction, partner choice, and desire are not dictated by biology alone. Culture, social conditioning, personal taste, and power dynamics swirl together like froth on your perfectly frothed matcha. That “preference” everyone whispers about isn’t destiny—it’s a story we’ve been told, carefully wrapped in a lab coat and dusted with patriarchal glitter.

So the next time someone whispers, “It’s biological,” tilt your head, sip your tea, and smile knowingly: honey, preference isn’t fate. And my plans don’t include shrinking.

Myth 2: “Women are naturally better caregivers”

Okay ladies, cue the collective sigh: women are empathic, nurturing, emotionally tuned. Men? Somewhere else entirely, busy being “practical,” “stoic,”, not to forget “logical,” and “too busy to notice feelings.”

Science check: caregiving is learned, situational, and deeply cultural. From childhood, girls are trained—often subtly—to soothe, anticipate, and manage emotions, while boys are frequently discouraged from flexing the same muscles. Empathy isn’t a chromosome—it’s a skill, and one that thrives when society actually lets humans practice it.

Now, I hear you: some parents say, “We never forced our kids into gendered toys—our daughter loved her dolls, our son loved his cars. We let them choose, and that’s good, right?” Absolutely—give them the space to explore what they love. But here’s the thing: even when individual parents step aside, the broader culture is still whispering, nudging, scripting roles. Books, TV, playground hierarchies, the “boys don’t cry” smirks from relatives, the “girls are sensitive” sighs from teachers… all of it layers on top. Choice matters, but freedom to grow into empathy, care, and emotional skill? That’s a societal practice, not just a parental yes or no.

So yes—celebrate the dolls, the cars, the play that feels right—but remember: cultivating care and emotional intelligence in humans isn’t a single toy or single household. It’s the world that has to let it bloom.

That being said, men are just as capable of care, compassion, and emotional attunement. Patriarchy just packages the story of the “naturally nurturing woman” to keep women invisible, overworked, and morally accountable for everyone else’s feelings. And yes, sometimes women themselves echo these stories—but that’s just the Patriarchy Filter talking, not a reflection of your brilliance.

So if you’ve ever felt like you were carrying everyone’s emotional luggage, breathe. That isn’t your destiny, darling—it’s conditioning. And if you want, you can hand some of it back, or sprinkle it with a little witchy magic before it lands anywhere.

Myth 3: “Women aren’t as good at careers, math, or leadership”

This tired old chestnut: women are supposedly less capable, less ambitious, less suited for high-status careers. Cue the collective eye-roll and sip of chai.

Science check: nope. There is absolutely no biological evidence that women are worse at leadership, math, technology, or finance. Differences in outcomes? Those come from bias, opportunity, and the systematic devaluation of women’s work, as well as conditioning of young children.

Take tech, for example. Early programming? Historically considered “women’s work”—poorly paid, low status, and mostly invisible. Then men entered the field, suddenly the same work became prestigious, high-paying, and “critical.” Not because the work got harder overnight, but because men claimed authority and the system elevated them. Classic patriarchy move: rebrand women’s brilliance as men’s success.

And let’s not forget: fields historically dominated by women—teaching, nursing, administration, caregiving—require enormous skill, responsibility, and emotional labor, yet are paid less and treated as “less serious” work. Meanwhile, women pursuing traditionally male-dominated careers are often branded “too aggressive,” “unfeminine,” or “emotional.” Same actions, different gender, different judgment. Leadership, intellect, ambition—they’re human traits. Patriarchy just decides who gets celebrated and who gets shamed for having the same fire.

So yes, ladies, if anyone whispers, “Women aren’t cut out for this,” sip your chai, smile knowingly, and think: honey, the universe didn’t put limits on me—it’s just some old patriarchal myth trying to gatekeep my magic.

Myth 4: “Men are ruled by their drives; women must manage desire”

Ah, yes—the classic tale every so-called “biology expert” loves to whisper: boys will be boys, girls must keep it together. Men are wild, impulsive, sexual, and totally “driven by instinct,” while women are the moral gatekeepers, expected to manage desire, and carry responsibility for everyone else’s feelings.

Science check: libido is human—not a gendered switch. It varies wildly between individuals, across life phases, and under the influence of hormones, stress, mental health, trauma, relationships, cultural messaging, and even sleep. Men are not helplessly wired to chase, and women are not naturally the universe’s moderators. Desire is not destiny.

Here’s the kicker: patriarchy has quietly redistributed responsibility under the guise of biology. Men are excused for “natural drives,” while women are expected to anticipate, prevent, and manage male behavior. If something goes wrong, the question is rarely, “Why did he do this?”—instead it’s, “Why didn’t she stop it? or the well known"What was she wearing?" Classic misdirection.

Truth: self-regulation, boundaries, and accountability are human skills, not gendered duties. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. So the next time someone mutters “it’s biology,” sip your chai, tilt your head, and think: honey, responsibility isn’t optional. And my magic doesn’t need anyone else to approve it.

------------------

And one more important thing — as uncomfortable as it may be:

(Content Note: sexualized violence)

Rape is never a “drive problem”; it is always power problem. Sexualized violence is never an expression of affection or desire, but of power-seeking, entitlement, and dehumanization (objectification) — sometimes accompanied by hatred. In sexualized violence, sexual desire or sexual drive is not the cause, but the form through which an underlying need for power and control is expressed. Explaining sexual violence through biology excuses it and shifts responsibility to the victim, not where it belongs.

Myth 5: “Men are naturally aggressive, dominant, and ambitious because of testosterone”

Ah, the evergreen patriarchy favorite: men are “wired” to dominate, compete, and crave power—and testosterone is the scapegoat. Simple, neat, and oh-so-convenient. Men are ambitious, women… well, expected to stay polite, quiet, and supportive.

Science check: hormones like testosterone influence some tendencies, yes—but context is everything. Levels fluctuate with stress, sleep, caregiving, social status, and life circumstances. Men and women both have it. It can amplify drive, but it does not create dominance, risk-taking, or leadership ambition out of thin air. Biology isn’t destiny.

Here’s the kicker: patriarchy doesn’t just rely on biology—it rewards certain behaviors differently depending on gender. Assertiveness, competitiveness, and risk-taking? Men are celebrated; women are labeled “bossy,” “emotional,” or “aggressive.” Leadership in men is genius; leadership in women is an overcompensation. Same behaviors, different evaluation—because society decides whose power is valid.

And it’s everywhere: politics, corporate ladders, finance, even social circles. Patriarchy loves to tell us, “This is natural, this is how humans are,” when in reality it’s all socialized, selective, and deeply convenient.

So next time someone sighs, “It’s testosterone, it’s biology,” sip your chai, tilt your head, and think: honey, power isn’t handed out—it’s claimed. And my magic? Oh, it’s already in motion.

Conclusion

These myths don’t just show us how the patriarchy limits, overworks, and shrinks women. They also reveal how much men suffer under it—expected to always be strong, dominant, sexually “driven,” and emotionally invulnerable. They, too, are strapped into an invisible corset that doesn’t do anyone any favors. In the end, patriarchy harms everyone—it’s just that the stories we’re told about it differ depending on gender.