Gender War Explained

The gender war – volcano – has finally erupted. The lava will continue to spew, until its biology is understood. The same goes, even more so, for politics and civilization. This is because it’s all about the biology of our species.

Here’s a go at it in 1000 words – or more:

All living things must survive and reproduce. In our species, reproduction occurs inside the nest. The female specializes in it, due to her body and brain anatomy. She feeds our helpless, dependent offspring, nurtures them, prepares them, and keeps the nest clean and comfortable for them.

The human male is specialized for survival. He acquires and brings food/resources into the nest. He also protects it against intruders.

This paradigm is found in numerous species in nature.

As humans can abstract, the male acquires not direct food/resources, but money. The female converts money into direct food/resources for the offspring and nest by behaviors called shopping and spending.

Inside the nest, all offspring are treated according to their needs. We are programmed to do what it takes to make as many copies of our genes as possible. Thus, all must survive and survive well, in order to reproduce in turn.

When the offspring are not so dependent as to need mother all the time, she ventures outside the nest to join the male in survival behavior, gathering money for it and their offspring.

Is it starting to be clear? Inside the nest, there is horror if ANY dependent is not cared for. This is manifest in today’s social/political world as the drive for a clean environment, for equality of all, of caring for the dependent/poor/victim/disenfranchised, and as endangered species acts.

Outside the nest, intruders (attackers and possible attackers) must be stopped. The military and police must be strong.

In today’s environment, women not only leave the nest when not reproducing, but can function equally with men – though they do not share identical values.

The result? GenderWar

More to follow.


Trump Misses Golden Opportunity to Woo Women

Donald Trump lost a great opportunity to increase his standing with women – instead losing them.

It all started with the billboard showing his wife in minimal garb. Reflexively, he thrusted back, directing barbs at his current archrival, Ted Cruz, implying Cruz was less of a man for not attracting as desirable a female as Ms. Trump. Cruz mainly parried, defending his wife, not himself, and thrusting back at Donald only secondarily.

In the process, Trump missed a chance to show attractive male behavior, that of protecting the nest/offspring/mate. He could have said how his wife was great and that he’d protect her against any criticism. That would have been protecting her. However, that would have involved a parry, and he’s a thruster.

Remember, one of the biological roles of human males is to protect against intruders. Secondary is to demolish them, though males know this is the best way to protect. Unfortunately, females do not share this as much.

What women do understand is the protection part. They value it to their core. They get genetically programmed pleasure in having a protecting male, as they do with a resource-acquiring male, who brings home resources – money – for them to do their job of nurturing the young.

That’s the way to woo a woman. Show her your maleness: protect and provide.

As if you did not know it, men and women do not understand each other beyond a certain point. Men protect not just by shielding, but by defeating the would-be intruder. Women understand and value and get pleasure in a shielding male much more than a male who demolishes a would-be intruder/attacker.

Instead of attracting women to a pure protector, Trump’s attacks on Cruz showed them his demolishing side, something that does not give fundamental, genetically programmed pleasure to women. To some degree, it leads to genetically programmed revulsion of the demolisher.

So, Donald, close, but no cigar!

Melvyn Lurie, M.D.

Sex In Politics – In Three Civilizations

The three major civilizations today are the Western, the communist, and the Muslim. Muslim civilization prioritizes outside the nest (OTN), survival functions. It hardly considers the values of the inside the nest parent – women.
Communism favors inside the nest functions (ITN). It believes all are equal. Its mantra in the communist manifesto is, “From those with the ability, to those with the need.” This is what we all experienced when we were ITN. All the siblings were treated equally, with the guideline being merely their need. The parent, of course, is the one with the ability.
Western Civilization offers a balance between ITN and OTN values. More, it has a mechanism to ensure this: freedom of speech. That way, it is able to work out the demands of each in a balanced way.
Some see the struggles between ITN and OTN politicians in the West as an indication of the decline of Western Civilization. It might be . : .
Melvyn Lurie, MD

Sex In Politics Reigns

If ever there were a doubt about the applicability of the framework of Sex In Politics, today’s politics dispels it. Remember, the framework is that we humans are genetically programmed to value both inside the nest (ITN) and outside the nest values (OTN).
Inside the nest relates to our reproductive behaviors, and we value them. Outside the nest relates to survival behaviors, and we value them, too. Due to the variation produced by sexual reproduction, there are both men and women who value each more than the other. That is, both men and women value inside the nest, reproductive functions, though they are imperatives for most women. The converse works for survival functions, outside the nest, performed imperatively by men, but also women.
Now let’s add the behavior in which, once the offspring are able to tolerate the inside the nest parent’s leaving the nest briefly, that parent engages in survival behavior outside the nest. Still, such OTN behavior by the ITN parent, mainly the female, is secondary to her focus on what is going on inside the nest.
In today’s politics, Donald Trump espouses OTN values. These are gathering resources/money and protecting the nest from intruders. He favors job creation. He considers who pays for things, e.g. the wall on the Mexican border. He values protecting the nest/country against intruders. He sees the few dangerous possibilities in the immigrant multitude.

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, values ITN functions. For example, he favors taking care of those unable to care for themselves: the youth, the poor, the victim, and the multitude of immigrants who present no danger. His supporters say it is unfair to favor some people over others, an ITN value that supports the survival of each and every offspring. He is less concerned about how debt forgiveness will be paid for, apart from the successful OTN billionaires. He is less concerned about acquiring resources than spending them, also an ITN value.
Hillary Clinton focuses on the ability of women, the ITN parent, to partake equally in OTN survival activity, namely the acquiring of resources for the nest by work.

Each side believes what it values is right, just, and moral, and it is – from its perspective. That there is conflict between these three sets of values is less important than their wide swings with each election. However, one of the successes of Western Civilization is its ability to balance these sets of values from moment to moment. That makes for a functional civilization and a functional country, as it does for a functional family.
Melvyn Lurie MD

Another Hidden Reason for Trump’s Leads

The popularity of Donald Trump initially stumped political experts. Now, they try to understand how he did it.

One reason was his appeal to emotions – and to people who had bottled up emotions they needed to pour out.

Here’s another reason: We know him. That’s right, we know him. Donald Trump understood this in his 20’s. He was a media man, who created an image as a swashbuckling entrepreneur.

He got himself depicted in places like the magazine inserted into the Sunday newspaper. He and his beautiful wife were a team. They worked long hours, together. The result was that he built a relationship with millions of people. Among them were investors and bankers, people who would help him in his then career, real estate. When he showed up for a loan or pitched a project to investors, they already knew him.

After a lull, he returned to the media. This time it was as a “reality” show host. In it, he depicts himself as a tough guy, someone not to be reckoned with. If you don’t do the job, you’re fired. Period. No coddling. Again, he reached millions, and many of them are . . . voters.

In both cases, what Trump did was to create a relationship. True, he defined the relationship with an image. What is more important than his image, however, is that he created a relationship. We know him. It’s The Donald.

Think about it. Millions of people who have never met a movie star will cry when he dies or divorces or gains weight or whatever.

Think about it. If you have a child or a brother who’s not the greatest, you still support him. After all, you’re in a relationship with him. You know him. Yeah, he’s a bit of a problem or a loose cannon or a (bit of) a bully or whatever. Nobody’s perfect, right? Well, we tend to support people we’re in a relationship with.

Politicians try to make a relationship/connection with voters, when they wear a hardhat. That might help some, but it’s only the germ of a relationship. An enduring relationship is a powerful thing. And that is what Trump created. Like him or not, millions are in a relationship with him. He created a neurological attachment that is beyond logic, or rather more profound than logic.

Besides supporting those we are in a relationship with, we also do not like separating from them. So, millions excuse Donnie for his shortcomings and stick with him because, just because, because we know him.

Next post will talk about the limits of relationships.

Mel Lurie, M.D.

Trump’s Answer To The Non-Conservative Accusation

It’s surprising that Donald Trump, the counterpuncher, has not come up with a simple explanation to the accusations he’s not a true conservative for donating money to both Democrats and Republicans.

Before my suggested “counterpunch”, let’s get real. We all know why he did this. That he’s a businessman is merely begging the question – which is, “Why does a businessman donate to both sides?” For influence, of course. After all, towers need permits. By donating to all sides, he ensures himself the ultimate victor will appreciate him.

OK. Now for my recommended, simple, “high road” (aka lie) as to why he did so. For freedom of speech, of course. He just wanted to make it possible for the voter to hear all sides by donating money to all sides, money with which they would presumably buy air time. Simple, American, Constitutionally consistent. What more could anyone want?

On the other hand, this strategy is a parry, and Trump likes to thrust. So, he’ll just counter thrust rather than . . . duck!

Just sayin’.

Mel Lurie, M.D.

Why Trump Is Unconsciously Feared By The Republican Establishment

The Republican establishment is clearly frightened of Donald Trump. They cite various reasons, but, as I psychiatrist, it is my job to look under the surface. Here’s what I come up with:
The Republicans are populated with conservatives. Conservatives want to conserve what is. “What is” is a culture in which survival, a predominately male function, is their focus.

Now, a look beneath the surface at the male brain reveals different wiring from that of the female – in general. Part of that different wiring involves fewer connections in the male brain between the location of emotions (limbic system) and the location where decisions are made (pre-frontal cortex).

This should be no surprise to anyone, as men are generally considered less in touch with their emotions than are women. More deeply, they are less comfortable with the role of emotions in decision making. They are operational, whereas the Democratic candidates are more inspirational.
Now, along comes Donald Trump. He is quite free to incorporate emotions into his decision making. He does not have or care about having detailed policies and plans, even on his website. Rather, he uses emotions to connect with the voters via their emotions. This approach is anathema to Republican establishers. They rely primarily on thought, on databases, on precise plans – blueprints.
So, whether or not detailed, unemotional plans are important or not in reality, they are secondary in the voters’ emotional worlds. What the voting populace responds to is emotions. That’s what populists are all about. They connect with emotions. That’s what Trump is all about, but that’s not what the Republican establishment is all about. Emotions are not their thing. Emotions make them nervous, anxious, uncomfortable, threatened, afraid.
And that, in a nutshell, is why the Republican establishment fears Trump. They are uncomfortable, nervous, threatened, fearful of them. The reasons they state are concrete, superficial, secondary, and not what really drives . . . their own emotion – fear – of emotional Donald  Trump!

Melvyn Lurie, M.D.

Supreme Court “Debate” a Good Reason To Ignore Political Arguments

Who are they kidding? Maybe themselves, but not the electorate.
It doesn’t take an Ivy League diploma to get that the arguments for and against the Supreme Court nomination are meaningless. The liberals just make arguments supporting their basic desire that Obama make the selection. The conservatives do the converse, betting their guy will make it in January.

That’s just how meaningful most political arguments are nowadays. The only trick is to figure out whether an IINO (independent in name only) is a liberal or conservative in disguise – disguised as an independent, that is.
That’s why the only reason to watch political TV is not to hear good argument, but rather to hear what resonates with our own political beliefs. CNN and company for the liberals and Fox and no company for the conservatives. It feels good – is pleasurable – to communicate with guests who see (feel, really) things like we do. In fact, it feels so good – and so bad to hear from all those stupid, amoral opponent – that we generally do not switch channels. I mean, who really cares about the other side? It certainly doesn’t feel very good to hear from it.
In conclusion, I support ignoring the arguments – and switching to the channel that . . . feels good!


Donald Trump is acting like he always has, like a survivalist. In our human world, the functions of survival are traditionally performed outside the nest by males. They acquire resources for the nest in the form of money. They also protect the nest against intruders.

Donald Trump does both. His ability to make money and jobs gives him credibility. People believe he knows how to do so and thus is the one who can make it happen for everyone. After all, we are inside the nest of the USA.

It does not matter how detailed his plans are. It is because he ready, willing, and able that people  believe he’ll find a way to do it. If one plan does not work, he’ll try another. His motivation is to acquire  resources for our country, resources that can fit into everyone’s pocket.

As for the protective function of survival, he’s all about that,  too. Keeping intruders out of the nest is a basic function of all nesting creatures. Our nests are our houses and, more broadly, our country. He’ll keep would be drug pushers and terrorists out. If one plan does not work, he’ll keep trying – because that’s what he’s about, protecting the nest.

So, this why Donald connects. He touches our basic need, survival. We feel pleasure in that. It feels good. We also feel less anxiety that intruders might get in. So, he offers relief from fear.

Next will be a post on Bernie, and what emotions he touches.



Hillary Clinton, who understands philandering in politics more than she ever bargained for, does not understand plain old ordinary sex in politics. She constantly focuses on women’s issues, but the only women’s issue she really talks about is a secondary one: equality outside the nest.

Women are genetically programmed by the sexual process to be focused on reproduction. In humans, reproduction occurs inside the nest, the home.

Women feel pleasure when reproductive functions are successful, less when they are merely supported, and pain when they are not. Well, what are these issues. One is attracting a mate. Women feel pleasure even in getting other couples together. They feel more pleasure than men at weddings, where couples really do come together.

An element of reproduction that causes anxiety and pain in women is when their mates are not present. In today’s digital world, they can be present on Skype, in yesterdays on the phone. However, what is best is that they are present. A focus group following Ann Romney’s speech during the last presidential cycle was enthusiastically received, when she said, “Mitt’s always there, when you need him.” That said volumes for Mitt Romney.

What else is fundamental to women? One is caring for the young, dependent offspring. Another is caring for the sick, as that is here people go when they are hurt or ill, to be taken care of by the occupant of the nest, women.

Women value making the nest comfortable. That means keeping it clean and beautifying it. Women a pleased when feeding others, which is clearly their biological job. Women convert money into resources for the family, by shopping and spending.

In human sexual reproduction, inside the nest behavior lessens when the offspring can take care of themselves. Then, women leave the nest to join men in the outside world. However, this is a secondary role for women. As such, women are more rational than men, when gaining resources/making money. Their pleasure is not that great. Their pain at not acquiring much wealth is not as great as for men.

There are certainly many reasons why candidates win or lose. However, the one neglected factor is the biological one. Addressing women’s needs and desires with inside the nest support is what will inspire them to vote. However, addressing women’s secondary function of joining the male outside the nest is just not as profound a part of the female psyche. Genetically.

Certainly, the email scandal and the speech for pay scandal are important burdens Hillary has to face. However, her rival, Bernie Sanders, is really connecting with voters by addressing truly female, inside the nest functions. Examples are caring for the young, preparing them for life outside the nest with education, and much more. Hillary will have to get what sex in politics tells us, in order to inspire her followers to work and vote for her. However, to date, she has not done so.