Gender reductionism is ruining relationship discourse. A relatively popular meme sums it up by saying, “I think all men should start in jail and prove their way out.” 

Clearly, this is a joke. But it does speak to a growing idea of an allegedly innate evil within men: Some argue that men are biologically prone to cheating or inflicting violence upon women. 

It is almost understandable given that many men in the cultural spotlight have either cheated on or abused women. In these innocuous conversations among women like the aforementioned meme, men are turned into instinctual predators, unable to change and grow. But in reducing men to victims of biology, women uphold the same patriarchal and biological essentialist standards that oppress them.

At a base level, biological essentialism is the belief that biology is all-determining for human social roles, traits and behaviors. Gender essentialism is the belief that there is something innately masculine or feminine. These concepts of gender are, while distinct, intertwined. It often manifests in sweeping claims about the essence of people  — i.e. men are like this and women are like that — hence the name. 

There is some scientific research to support this. Most famously, in “The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating,” evolutionary psychologist David Buss seeks to position dynamics between the sexes through the lens of biology. 

In the early chapters of the book, Buss chronicles the evolutionary advantages of mating, such as when women chose reliable, committed partners out of environmental necessity. He certainly acknowledges varying cultural contexts that change mating standards or practices, but he still contends that there is a universal, biological distinction between men and women. 

Interestingly, these suggested biological differences are also socially constructed. Just as people — generally men — today choose to abandon their partners, ancient cavemen did not abandon their partners out of a biological need to do so, but rather because they chose to do so.  

In reality, it is not that men or women behave in particular ways but rather that people behave in particular ways. 

Yes, men are statistically more likely to cheat on their partners, according to studies. But it is not because men are inherently more inclined to cheat, but because men are socialized into a world where their sexual appetites are more accepted than women’s. Men do not cheat on their partners because they are hardwired to do so; they actively make that choice. 

A perfect demonstration of the biological intersecting with the social is an analysis of emotionality between men and women, since much of the discourse between the genders surrounds each gender’s emotional responses. It is a microcosm of the larger discussions of behavior. 

Historically, women have been thought of as the more emotional gender: In 2001, Pew Research found that Americans saw women as more emotional and affectionate and men as more aggressive. Thankfully, there has been some evolution in this space.

In December 2017, Pew found that a majority of Americans thought that men and women were “basically different” when it comes to emotional expression. While women were more likely to point to societal factors as the reason, a majority of men saw it as a biological distinction. 

While psychologists generally concur that there are sex-based differences in emotionality — potentially due to evolution — it is still important to note what counts as emotional. Women are more likely to experience “negative emotions” such as guilt, shame and embarrassment. But the substantial differences between the genders are slight.

A study from the University of Michigan’s Department of Psychology found that in the study’s populations, there were “little to no differences between the men and the various groups of women, suggesting that men’s emotions fluctuate to the same extent as women’s, although likely for different reasons.” Men are emotionally wired the same way women are. It’s how their emotions are socially received that influences how they express them. 

Anger is a good example. When instances of domestic abuse spike when home football teams lose unexpectedly, men are not seen as emotional. Their aggression is expected. The same cannot be expected of women. It goes without saying that women are also capable of tremendous anger and violence. But their anger and violence is seen as “irrational” rather than “passionate.” 

The emotions are the same, but the responses are different. 

Viewing men as inherent antagonists to women is incredibly reductive. Men are not inherently abusive, but all men are raised in an environment that tolerates male abuse. Part of deconstructing patriarchy is deconstructing the essentialisms of “man” and “woman.” 

Essentialism absolves people of responsibility: If every behavior can be attributed to genetics and is thus unchangeable, it removes any potential for growth.