Power is attractive because it enables people to do what they want, gives them the the ability to change their mind, and even to avoid certain consequences of bad choices. Each gender has a tendency to view power differently because each gender has slightly different goals in life.
Dictionary definition
The dictionary definition of power is “the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events.”
I like to split power into two arbitrary categories – localised power and universal power.
Localised versus Universal power
The difference between the two categories is whether or not the holder of a power can reproduce it in a different setting. For example, the manager of a coffee shop has a level of power over his employees and in the management of the shop. This is localised power because he cannot reproduce that same influence in another setting.
Universal powers are usually personal characteristics that can be applied to many settings. The main one being real confidence, leadership, openness, and the two types of intelligence (emotional and intellectual). To have more universal power, often you do need to have acquired some localised powers, either in the past or currently. This is because it is easier to get localised powers and can then use the experience to develop universal power traits. For example, the coffee shop manager might lose his job and start working in a farm, but the leadership experience he may have gained could increase his universal power.
Universal power is significantly more attractive for obvious reasons. It is often felt across cultures and locations. That said, many people use localised power to attract partners because of shared interests. E.g. if a man becomes a dance teacher and runs his own classes, he has a lot of localised power that he can attract a partner with. If she is also a dancer and is heavily influenced by the local dance community, then in a way, that localised power is more similar to universal because it is more likely to always be present.
Localised power is not always good though. For example, bosses taking advantage of employees etc. This is why there are safeguards in place (that aren’t always effective) because not everyone with localised power uses it for good purposes, but it can still be attractive in that setting even if in a toxic manner.
Power is a taboo topic
Both genders find power an attractive trait, and based on personal preferences, can rank it differently to each other. That said, power is very hard to measure, particularly universal power. We can often feel power, but we cannot fully describe it. This is the reason why when a person is asked what they look for a partner, they list a set of wants, and can be presented with many potentials that fit those requirements and they will not be attracted to them. Essentially, power is both super important in attraction and a hard-to-understand taboo.
Men and Women view power differently
Men view other men as powerful if they can influence and attract other powerful men and women. This has to be genuine influence and attraction. For example, a spoiled king might have localised power and force people to do his bidding, but that power would be useless in a place that is not his country. His smart advisor that keeps the country running though, may have a lot of universal power due to his ability to make smart decisions and earn the trust of other powerful peers.
Men view women as powerful if they can influence and attract other men. So, what is the difference? First, men do not tend to care as much if women can influence other women. It’s usually correlated anyway (a woman who can influence men, can probably influence women too). The reason for this might be social construct in that less women are involved in wars, politics and positions of leadership, or it may be a biological one for the similar reasons. The social vs biological is a topic of its own, and while I think biological factors have a higher influence, will refrain from discussing it further to keep the article on topic.
The second difference is that many men consider woman’s power reduced (often significantly) if she has had many sexual partners. This is one of the most unfair aspects between the genders, and feminism in the 20th century has tried hard to change this. The problem lies that regardless of whether some men shame women for sexual freedom due to biological or social constructs, there is a large majority of men who are also heavily impacted negatively by this unjust aspect. How so? When gender comparisons are made, it is often compared the average woman to the top men. The average man is so invisible that his struggles are often not even considered.
If the average man feels he has less power than the average woman, then they will struggle to attract a partner (at least one they feel is on a similar level to them). What do such men do? Collectively they try to bring down women.
The summary of the book “The case against the Sexual Revolution” can be summarised by this power imbalance. Essentially, feminists in the 20th century wanted to give more power to woman by making sexual freedom acceptable to both genders. But the side effect of this was it actually reduced most women’s overall power, gave even more power to the top % of men (who now can attract even more women without social judgement), and made even more average men invisible (because they now have more difficulty attracting similar power partners).
Before you crucify me, I still believe that the feminist movement was necessary and the better outcome overall in a non-perfect, unfair world. The main reason I believe this is because while women may have had more power before the sexual revolution, the power often only lasted until marriage. At which point, if her husband was toxic, she had very little options in life. And in many cultures, even if the woman had power before marriage, that power was often abused by her family, forcing her to use it for the good of the family rather than her own. This is why I disagree with most of what Louise Perry writes in her book. She is correct that women who want a monogamous relationship are negatively impacted by the sexual revolution, and if we only measured “happy monogamous relationships” as a metric, then most likely the feminist movements of the 20th century reduced this metric, but the overall quality of life improvement to women is most likely higher.
Women’s view on power
Women also see power differently. While they tend to see power in men similar to how men view it, there is a limit. If a man attracts too many women, he is both attractive and a threat because he could have more options to leave her for another woman. This is why women often have boundaries that try to reduce the men’s attraction to other women. Sometimes, this goes so far the other way that the woman loses attraction for her own man. Similarly, men try to have boundaries to restrict other men attracting his partner, because if she cheats, then his own power is reduced (he does not have the influence to protect his own family).
These power struggles may sound old fashioned but ignore them at your own peril because they are just as valid now as they were in more traditional times, it is just that they are a taboo subject or discussed in roundabout ways.
Women view other women’s power based on the likelihood of her attracting her partner or the partner she wants. This is one of the reasons why slut-shaming can be more common from women then from men. While men might not want to marry a more promiscuous woman, he still benefits from such women from easier access to sex. Women, particularly those who want or are in a monogamous relationship, view promiscuous women as a threat and thus attempt to bring her down via character attacks. This is one of the reasons female friendships have more drama than males.
Men view power as more linear so most guys ‘know their place’. And if there a is a conflict – they fight it out physically. Women’s power is more complex, heavily influenced by subjective factors such as beauty and perception of promiscuity which can be impacted by rumours of slut shaming.
Is there a better way empower both women and men in a healthy manner?
If the sexual revolution harmed monogamous relationships but improved the overall quality of life for most women, can something be done to improve both? My view is that it is possible, but human psychology makes it very difficult. The reason is that as soon as you change something, people put their own spin on it and abuse it.
For example, in modern times, there are essentially no repercussions for cheating. Even when kids are involved, the consensus is that if cheating happened, then the relationship was in a bad place and a divided but “happy” family is better than a united but struggling one. Of course, not everyone thinks this way, but enough do to make it a real risk.
This harms monogamous relationships because people are more willing to accept the single life. Why take the risk of a broken family when you can have endless fun being single, even if it is unfulfilling in the long-term?
If you were to put social pressure on cheating and cheaters, to try and reduce the appeal of it, then most likely people will expand on it and go back to massive slut-shaming, undoing much of the work done by feminists. There is no simple solution.
What can you do about it?
The world cycles in stages and there is very little you can do to impact the cycles in your own lifetime. What you have to do is figure out what is more important for you, and whether the potential extra work and risk is worth it.
For example, while people who want monogamous relationships may be facing tougher times, there will be people that wanted sexual freedom that are probably loving the current dynamic.
If you are undecided on what you want, then taking the current “easy” path of embracing the opportunities of these freedoms may not be a bad choice.
If however, you want a family that has a high chance of being united and a marriage that lasts until death do us part, then you will have extra work to improve your power in the world, so that you can attract a partner who is also willing to put in extra work against temptations and the social quota.
