The central London screening for the new high-profile weepie Me Before You was mostly an all-women affair. There were free tights, hankies and low-calorie crisps on every seat. There were four men in the auditorium. The film was introduced by director Thea Sharrock, writer Jojo Moyes and star Emilia Clarke (from Game of Thrones). The film is based on the book of the same title that spent weeks at the top of the best seller lists.
Me Before You told the story of an alluring, happy, working-class girl (Emilia Clarke) who is hired to care for a despondent, moody, upper-class, phenomenally rich, handsome, quadriplegic man (Sam Claflin). He is suicidal because he hates being paralysed. Her job is to show him that being disabled is manageable and despite his severe disability his life can still be enjoyed.
Apparently this film had the entire female audience in tears, much to the confusion of the few men present, who thought the film was terrible. One later asked what is wrong with these women that they cry at such a contrived and awful film?
There is nothing “wrong” with women, they are just different to men. To say this however is deemed politically incorrect.
It was in the communist Soviet Union that the phrase “politically correct” was born. i.e. something could be demonstrably untrue or scientifically incorrect but politically correct because it supported their particular political philosophy.
It may shock us to our core but women and men are fundamentally different, on average. They are wired differently.
We may also ask ourselves why Mills and Boon novels are so popular. J.K. Rowling sold 400 million Harry Potter books in an 11-year career. Mills & Boon sell 200 million formulaic female romantic fiction novels worldwide every year. And this is only one publisher of this popular genre.
50 shades of Grey is a book written by a woman and the film is directed by a woman. The audience for both was predominantly women.
Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice created the formula for most female fantasies written since 1813: Young, inexperienced girl meets older, aloof, condescending but rich and very powerful man, who she initially dislikes but with whom she feels a strong physical attraction. Her latent physical desire for him causes her body to “betray” her and she ends up dancing with him against her better judgment and conscious will (the modern version has her having passionate sex with him against her conscious will). He does male things like hunting, fencing and shooting. She is pretty, intelligent and gentle. She manages to tame this rogue as her own through her personality, intelligence and common sense. Eventually he is tortured by his love for her and has eyes for nobody else, despite having a whole world of women to choose from. He proposes to her and she admits she loved him from the start but didn’t know it.
Neither books nor films are substitutes for real relationships and physical contact, but perhaps the popularity of this genre gives us a peek into many women’s subconscious fantasies. It seems this is what many women want.
A few evolution based scientific facts to back up this clever and much used formula:
- Women are generally more attracted to men of a higher social status then themselves.
- Women are generally more attracted to men of equal or higher intelligence than themselves.
- Women are generally more attracted to men who are attractive to many other women (think One Direction and the rich and powerful)
This formula doesn’t work if the man is a lowly manual labourer or has learning difficulties. The disabled addition in this particular film plays to womens’ naturally more nurturing hardwired behaviour.
Women will choose high social status men (a proxy for good genes) to ensure their own genes have a good chance of survival in future generations. To prove high social status takes a bit longer so women tend to go for successful, older men (4 years older in the UK on average). Men had different evolutionary pressures so evolved to behave differently, on average.
Much of this behaviour is hard wired, as is our sexuality and our urge to have sex with attractive members of the opposite sex.
This film is basically a formula designed by psychologists and evolutionary biologists to appeal to women. Much the same concept as Teletubbies, which was designed by child psychologists to appeal to toddlers. The purposes of both ventures was to make money.
Feminism is concerned with how the world ought to be. Science is concerned with how the world is. Unfortunately 100 years of feminism does not undo 3,500,000,000 years of evolution.