Sarah Hill

The Illusion of Upward Trajectory Many of us walk through life accepting a specific, linear story about the history of women. We are told that we have been on a never-ending upward path of progress, moving from the dark ages of domestic slavery toward a bright, liberated future. This narrative is so pervasive that questioning it feels almost sacrilegious. However, if we look closer at the actual shift in material conditions over the last two centuries, we find a story that is far less about moral enlightenment and far more about technological displacement. Mary Harrington argues that feminism is not a story of moral progress, but a response to the way technology reordered human life. Before the Industrial Revolution, the household was the basic unit of economic production. Men and women worked together in agrarian or artisan settings. While men often held formal legal power, women wielded significant informal power because they were economically productive members of a joint enterprise. When work left the home for the factory, that interdependence shattered. This shift turned women into economic dependents in a way they had never been before. The early feminist movements were legitimate attempts to fix the legal vulnerabilities created by this new, industrial reality. They weren't fighting against "wicked people" from the past; they were trying to survive a world where the domestic sphere had been hollowed out. Today, we are told that working for a corporate employer is "freedom," yet many women find themselves more atomized and lonelier than their ancestors. True growth requires us to recognize when a "liberation" is actually just a new form of market dependency. The Cyborg Turn and the Death of Care We have transitioned from the industrial era into what Harrington calls the Cyborg Era. This isn't science fiction; it is the reality of a personhood that is inseparable from technology. The pivotal hinge was the Contraceptive Pill. By using biotechnology to suppress a natural, healthy biological function, we didn't just gain "freedom"—we fundamentally reordered the human body to fit the demands of the market. In this new Cyborg Theocracy, the "good" is defined as the pursuit of ever-more freedom underwritten by technology. We have prioritized the "feminism of freedom"—the right to enter the market on the same terms as men—at the total expense of the "feminism of care." The feminism of care recognizes that we are not atomized individuals; we are mothers, daughters, and neighbors who exist in a web of interdependence. When we treat our fertility as a defect to be managed by big pharma, we accept the premise that we are "defective males" who must be fixed to be productive. This has led to a war on the most fundamental human relationships. The market has moved inward, colonizing the body and the soul. We see this in the commodification of reproductive labor, where every part of the journey—from gametes to the womb itself—is now a subscription product or a market resource. This isn't liberation; it's the ultimate enclosure of the human person. The Collapse of Trust and the Rise of OnlyFans The technological shift hasn't just changed how we work; it has decimated how we love. We have moved into a phase of "Big Romance," which Harrington identifies as the self-expressive marriage. We no longer view partnership as a pragmatic, stable union for survival or child-rearing. Instead, we view it as a vector for self-actualization. If a partner stops "optimizing" our personal brand or happiness, we feel entitled to walk away. This consumerist approach to dating, fueled by the frictionless marketplace of apps, has created a tragedy of the commons in the mating market. When everyone is perpetually peering over their partner's shoulder to see if a better "product" is available, trust becomes impossible. The result is an adversarial and exploitative dynamic between the sexes. Platforms like OnlyFans represent the logical conclusion of this trajectory. We are told that commodifying the self into a subscription product is empowering, but it actually leaves both men and women in a state of profound psychic distress. It replaces vulnerability with a transaction. When we treat sex as consequence-free leisure, we ignore the deep psychological and social architecture that makes intimacy meaningful. The "freedom" to package ourselves for the market has left a generation of young people too frightened to extend the vulnerability required for real love. Reclaiming Sovereignty from the Market To move forward, we must be willing to have a "freedom haircut." We have to recognize that infinite optionality is actually a cage. For women, this means reclaiming sovereignty over our own bodies from the biomedical market. We must challenge the idea that we only access personhood if we exert mastery over the things that make us female. Solidarity between the sexes is the only way to survive a dangerous and unstable world. This requires us to move toward a "post-romantic" marriage—one based on radical loyalty and interdependence rather than fleeting consumerist satisfaction. It also means allowing men the space to form one another. Shouting at men doesn't make them better; good men are formed by other good men in shared, single-sex spaces. We need an "Occupy Ourselves" movement. We must refuse to see our bodies as fleshy Lego sets to be disassembled and sold to the highest bidder. Whether it is resisting the routine use of hormonal birth control or pushing back against the commercialization of the womb, the goal is the same: to protect the human from being entirely absorbed by the machine. Growth happens when we choose the difficult, beautiful reality of our nature over the sterile promises of the technological market. It is time to step back from the edge and remember what it means to be human. Conclusion: The Path Back to Connection The story of the last century is one of displacement, where we traded the safety of the household for the "freedom" of the assembly line and the digital app. We have gained convenience but lost the solid ground of community and the sacredness of the body. The future of personal growth lies in recognizing that our inherent strength isn't found in how well we can mimic a machine, but in how deeply we can care for one another. As we look ahead, the challenge is to build a world where technology serves the human, not the other way around. This starts with small, intentional steps: prioritizing stability over optionality, vulnerability over commodification, and the feminism of care over the hollow freedom of the market. By reclaiming our nature, we can finally find the happiness that the digital age promised but failed to deliver.

The Architecture of Moral Judgment and Survival Your greatest power lies in recognizing the inherent strength required to navigate a complex social world. To understand why we judge others or seek status, we must first look at the psychological foundations that keep us safe. Research conducted by Rob Henderson reveals that our moral intuitions are deeply intertwined with physical and social threats. This isn't just about abstract philosophy; it is about biological fortification. There is a striking link between disgust and morality. When people experience disgust in response to contamination or illness, it often bleeds into their moral judgments. If you are sensitive to germs, you are statistically more likely to condemn moral wrongdoers harshly. As we grow older, our moral judgments become stricter, not simply because of shifting political views, but because of an increased perception of vulnerability. A strong, robust, and healthy person often sees the world as less dangerous. In contrast, someone who feels physically or socially vulnerable—such as women historically protecting young children or elderly individuals facing physical decline—adopts a stricter moral code as a defensive mechanism. Your morality serves as a shield against a world perceived as formidable. The Male Warrior Hypothesis and Cooperation through Conflict Growth happens one intentional step at a time, often through the friction of competition. The Male Warrior Hypothesis suggests that men and women evolved distinct psychological mechanisms to handle group conflict. While men display more overt physical hostility toward one another within their own groups, they also possess a unique capacity for sudden, high-level cooperation when faced with an outside threat. In studies of college athletes, male teammates frequently engage in shoving, name-calling, and physical sparring. However, the moment they compete against an external team, this internal hostility vanishes, replaced by hyper-focused cooperation. Women, conversely, tend to utilize indirect aggression—ostracism, rumor-spreading, and social shunning. This indirect aggression remains relatively high even when competing against an outside group. This suggests that human cooperation is actually a byproduct of competition. We became the most cooperative species on the planet because we had to be the most effective at competing at scale. Our ability to build civilizations is the inverse of our ability to wage war. Formidability versus Attractiveness: The Predator-Partner Paradox There is a common misconception that sexual success is driven solely by what the opposite sex finds visually appealing. However, the data tells a more complex story about power and perception. In a landmark study mentioned by Rob Henderson, women rated men's attractiveness while men rated the same men's likely success in a physical fight. Eighteen months later, the correlation between female-rated attractiveness and the men's actual sexual success was zero. The strongest predictor of how many partners a man had was actually how formidable or intimidating other men found him. This reveals that many secondary sex characteristics—broad shoulders, deep voices, facial hair—are not "peacock tails" designed to please the eye. They are "deer antlers" designed for competition. When you go to the gym or build a commanding presence, you are often communicating more to your competitors than to potential mates. Women frequently use social hierarchies to outsource the task of choosing a partner; they look for the man whom other men respect or fear. Status is an amorphous quality that exists in the minds of others, and for men, that status is often conferred by their peers before it is ever recognized by women. The Psychology of the Dad Bod and Mate Retention In recent years, the cultural conversation around the "dad bod" has sparked intense debate, often offending men who invest heavily in their physical fitness. Why does a softer physique occasionally hold more appeal in long-term contexts? It comes down to comfort and resource allocation. Sarah Hill has noted that men with certain levels of body fat are often perceived as better fathers. This isn't because they are more capable of protection, but because their physique signals a closed door to outside mating opportunities. A man who is "peeled" and looks like a superhero is a high-risk partner for a woman seeking stability; he has more avenues to stray. A man with a "dad bod" is seen as someone who will invest his calories and time into the family rather than into the pursuit of new mates. For women with anxious attachment or those prioritizing long-term security, the comfort of knowing a partner is less likely to be pursued by others can actually increase their level of arousal and relationship satisfaction. The "dad bod" is a signal of domesticity and safety. The Male Monkey Dance and the Ritual of Fair Fighting Conflict is rarely random; it follows a scripted ritual known as the Male Monkey Dance. Outlined by Rory Miller in Meditations on Violence, this dance involves a series of escalating steps: the hard stare, verbal challenge, chest bumping, and eventually, the roundhouse punch. This ritual typically occurs between two strangers of similar age and size where the outcome of a fight is uncertain. We have an evolved psychological mechanism that values a "fair fight." When men fight within these rules, they are signaling their physical endurance, strength, and character. If a man cheats—using a weapon immediately or resorting to "dirty" tactics—he stops signaling formidability and starts signaling that he is simply a dangerous, unpredictable person. While this might help him survive in a life-or-death situation, it costs him prestige. We admire Jason Bourne because he only escalates as a last resort, often using a pen or a magazine to defend himself against someone with a knife. This restraint is what separates a respected leader from a feared tyrant. True strength is the ability to win while adhering to the social contracts that keep a community together.

The Biological Blueprint of the Ovulatory Cycle To understand how Hormonal Birth Control alters the mind, we must first appreciate the intricate dance of a natural ovulatory cycle. For a naturally cycling woman, the brain and body operate on a shifting landscape of Estradiol and Progesterone. During the first half of the cycle, estrogen dominates. This phase is characterized by a surge in energy, a heightened interest in the world, and an increased drive for social and sexual connection. It is nature’s way of preparing the body for potential conception. The brain becomes more plastic, functional connectivity shifts, and even the number of dendritic spines on neurons can change in response to these hormonal signals. Once ovulation occurs, the script flips. Progesterone takes center stage, signaling the body to shift its focus from seeking a mate to preserving energy. This phase often brings about increased hunger, sleepiness, and a more inward-focused psychological state. It is a protective mechanism designed to support a potential pregnancy. These shifts aren't just physical; they are psychological filters. They change how a woman perceives a man's face, how she responds to music, and how she assesses risk. This isn't a sign of weakness or "fickleness." It is a sophisticated biological coordination system that ensures the brain and body are moving in the same direction toward specific evolutionary goals. The Pill and the Psychological Flattening When a woman starts taking The Pill, she effectively puts her natural hormonal cycle on pause. By providing a steady, daily dose of synthetic hormones—usually a high level of synthetic Progestin and a low level of synthetic estrogen—the medication tricks the brain into thinking ovulation has already occurred. This prevents the release of an egg, which is the primary goal of contraception. However, it also eliminates the natural waxing and waning of Estradiol and Progesterone. This creates a state of psychological flattening. Without the high-estrogen "glow" of the ovulatory phase, many women report a significant drop in libido and a general sense of being less "awake" to the world. Research by Sarah Hill suggests that this hormonal stabilization can alter a woman’s subjective experience of life. She might find herself less interested in new music, less motivated to hit the gym, and less attuned to sexual cues. The very mechanism that prevents pregnancy also dampens the psychological drivers of mate seeking and sexual desire, essentially keeping the brain in a perpetual state of the luteal phase. Mate Preference and the Shifting Market One of the most startling discoveries in this field is how Hormonal Birth Control influences mate choice. Naturally cycling women near peak fertility typically show a heightened preference for men with more "masculine" features—traits often associated with high Testosterone and strong genetic health. These cues include facial structure, voice pitch, and even scent. However, when women are on the pill, this preference often shifts toward less masculinized faces and more "provider-type" qualities. This has massive implications for long-term relationships. If a woman chooses a partner while on the pill, she might prioritize stability and financial provisioning over raw physical attraction. If she later discontinues the medication—perhaps to start a family—her natural preferences return. For some, this leads to a "waking up" effect where they find their partner more attractive than ever if he happens to be highly masculine. For others, it can lead to a sharp decline in sexual and relationship satisfaction. The person they chose with their "pill brain" may not align with what their "naturally cycling brain" desires, creating significant interpersonal turmoil. Adolescent Development and the Mental Health Toll Perhaps the most urgent area of concern involves the prescription of The Pill to adolescent girls. The teen years are a critical window for brain development, a process coordinated largely by sex hormones. When we introduce synthetic hormones during this period, we aren't just preventing pregnancy; we are potentially altering the structural development of the brain. Data indicates that adolescent users are at a significantly higher risk for anxiety and depression—sometimes triple the risk compared to adult women. Even more concerning is the possibility of permanent changes. One study suggested that women who used hormonal birth control during their teenage years remained at an increased risk for major depressive disorder even after they stopped using it. We are essentially conducting a massive, uncontrolled experiment on the developing female brain. While The Pill is often prescribed for minor issues like acne or cramps, the long-term psychological cost may far outweigh the temporary physical benefits. We must demand more research on how these medications lock in certain propensities for mental health struggles across the lifespan. Cultural Ripples and the Mating Crisis Beyond individual psychology, Hormonal Birth Control may be influencing the broader culture and the current "mating crisis." Men’s Testosterone levels are sensitive to cues of female fertility. In a world where a vast percentage of women are on hormonal contraception, the biological signals of ovulation are largely absent from the environment. This lack of "estrogen in the air" might be a contributing factor to the global decline in male testosterone and achievement motivation. Furthermore, by lowering the biological "standard" for sexual access, we may be inadvertently reinforcing male shiftlessness. If men can achieve sexual success without having to demonstrate the traditional markers of a "good provider" or a pillar of the community, they may feel less drive to develop those qualities. We see a feedback loop where women on the pill are more likely to accept partners who lack masculine dominance, and men, in turn, feel less pressure to strive for it. This shifting market dynamic fundamentally alters how the sexes interact and what we require of one another in the modern age. Toward a More Informed Future Recognizing the side effects of Hormonal Birth Control is not an argument for its removal. This medication has been a cornerstone of female economic independence and social mobility. It gave women the power to plan their lives and careers with certainty. However, we must be able to hold two truths simultaneously: The Pill is a vital tool for freedom, and it has profound, often negative, impacts on female psychology and health. The future of contraception must move away from systemic hormonal suppression. We need innovative solutions—like the non-hormonal sperm-blocking research currently being tested in mice—that address the mechanics of conception without rewriting a woman's brain chemistry. Until then, the burden lies on us to ensure that every woman making a choice about birth control has all the information. True empowerment is not just having the choice; it is understanding exactly what you are trading away for it.