Eggs are Expensive, Sperm is Cheap: 50 Politically Incorrect Thoughts for Men

This book was recommended by a friend. This friend is a social, religious, and political conservative, with very specific opinions on the separation of genders.

I did not want to like this book.

But, in the end, I agreed with far more than I disagreed with.

The book is very well-written. The first half lays out a case for the traditional, evolutionary separation of the sexes. The second half attempts to interpret how that should impact our current lives.

It’s short. Less than 100 pages. You could read it in 90 minutes.

The title is the core argument: women are more valuable to the long-term continuation of a society than men. For women, a pregnancy is expensive, in financial, physical, and social terms. For men, not so much.

Say you have a society of 100 people – 50 men, 50 women. Then something happens, and 90% of the women are killed, so you now have 50 men and 5 women. That society is in real trouble. Women can only have so many babies, and it takes a long time for a female to reach child-bearing age. Five women are probably not enough to continue the society over the long-term.

But wipe out 90% of the men, and you’re fine. A small number of men can “cast” their sperm all over the place with wild abandon. Men can create lots and lots of babies. Women can’t.

So, the man’s traditional, evolutionary, instinctive job in society was simple: sacrifice yourself to protect the women.

(Again, let me stress: this is an evolutionary perspective. Not a social perspective. Not a justice perspective. This is caveman stuff. I’ll talk more below about why this might suck.)

And the author expands this is into all sorts of other points. He makes the point early that he’s “not politically correct” (I hate this; if you feel you have to say this, then you’re trying too hard), and he “just wants to present another side of the story” (this also feels like air cover for crappiness).

But a lot of first part the book is hard to deny – the evolutionary theory part.

I got a little annoyed when he drifted into the second half of the book – practical application. He goes off there on a “be a man!” tirade. He says men should:

• Learn to fight
• Just get over it!
• Be aloof and mysterious
• Don’t do everything your wife asks
• Workout
• Become a man that other women desire, to keep your partner just a little jealous

Etc, etc. Some of this just made him sound like a douchebag, honestly. Maybe even an incel? A lot of it got cringey.

Also, this is not an explicitly Christian book. This is by design, I think. He only mentions Christianity and scripture once, in passing. I think he left that out to disguise the intentions of the book. He knew that by phrasing this in religious terms, it would drastically limit his audience.

But the Christian intentions are clear. He tells men: no sex outside marriage, don’t look at other women, no porn, etc.

But he frames this interestingly and again in evolutionary terms – the drive for sex is what causes men to become better people, to attract a mate, and cheap sex is what is cause men today to be crappy versions of themselves. Since no one has to get better to get sex, men just sit on the couch and masturbate to porn now instead of improving themselves.

Some other gripes –

• He overdoes the faux astonishment. In lots of places, he heaps on the adjectives about “total lunacy” and “just crazy.” Okay buddy, we get it it – you’re the only rational voice left on the planet and world has gotten so nuts it broke your brain because you’re just so gosh darn reasonable. I rolled my eyes quite a bit at this.

• He discounts the oppression of women. He seems to claim that it doesn’t exist, going back to his argument that women have traditionally been protected. I think this is pretty naive. It’s tough to deny that women have far less opportunity in contemporary society.

• Related to that, he frames the “opportunity” and “value” of women purely in evolutionary terms. Yes, women must be protected – but only because they’re baby factories and tools for sex. That’s a little dehumanizing. What if a woman doesn’t want to be those things? Does she no longer have value?

That last point is a core frustration with the book: the role of women in the society throughout the entire book is framed simply as one of sex and procreation. Women have value only because they can make babies, or because males desire to have sex with them, and that’s motivation for men to be productive.

That’s…not good?

But, that said, it is genuinely worth reading. As discussed above, I certainly have issues with some of it, but it’s an interesting perspective, and it’s very well-written.