Evolutionary psychology, the field on which RP seems to base many of it's more 'out-there' conclusions, has a history of being controversial - for deep-rooted theoretical/methodological problems, overstating findings, tunnel-vision-esque focus on particular causal explanations and seemingly often trying to drum up a fuss for the sake of it. With all that said, it's impossible to do psychology without at least considering evolutionary causes.

With that introduction out of the way, I wanted to try to tackle some odd ideas that some Red Pill people seem to have with biology:

Genes are (more or less) meaningless without environmental context

Often, you will hear people talk about whether something is a product of 'environment' or 'genetics'. This is very misguided. In reality, there is a complex interplay between the two. Most importantly, you may have heard the statistic that 98+% of our DNA is 'junk'. What biologists actually mean by this is that only a small amount of DNA is the instruction sheet from which proteins are made. What the rest of it does is control when those proteins should get made.

This is a very important concept, because the knock on effect is that environment is often more important than genes.

For example, some people have a gene which might predispose them to violent behaviour through modulation of some neurotransmitter or another. However, in an environment with normal (e.g low) levels of violence, these people display no more tendency to aggression than the average person. It's only when they end up in a violent environment that their rates of aggression skyrocket.

The take-away is that a biologically identical person will respond radically differently in different environments. Ideas about biological pre-destination were fashionable in the 1940s, it's a bit late now to be clinging on to the concept. It also makes it pretty meaningless to talk about people divorced from culture. There's little you can accurately generalise from gender to gender, culture to culture, because the environment people live in tells you how their genes are expressed.

Humans aren't a tournament species

Animals can be classed into two general groups - 'pair bonding' and 'tournament' species.

Tournament species feature high sexual dimorphism and alpha males/females, and often a very small proportion of males/females (depending on which gender is the big, aggressive one) is very sexually successful, while most are not. Gorillas, lions, hyenas and grouse are all examples. In tournament species, females often search for strong, aggressive males, who impregnate them and then frequently abandon them to raise their offspring alone. Female investment in children is low.

In pair bonding species, low sexual dimorphism is standard, there are no alphas, the range of sexual success is lower. Most birds are pair bonding, as are voles, some species of jackal and arguably some gibbon species. In pair bonding species, it is key for a male to be able to demonstrate his ability to nurture and raise children - female investment in children is very high.

Humans, as you may well have guessed, fall far towards the 'pair bonding' side of the spectrum. We are naturally predisposed to monogamy - our biology, psychology and anatomy all supports this state of affairs.