Originally posted 2017-08-11 14:42:22.
Women think in terms of power and men in terms of sex; this is innate.
Women’s best chance of success in evolutionary terms is the protection of their children. They are limited in how many they can have and rear to maturity, and childbirth, without modern medicine, is extremely dangerous. So women constantly (and reasonably) seek control (power) over their own reproduction, since for them, choosing a good mate is paramount. This extends over the space they live in — so that male aggression in particular is removed and with it the risk of violence, accidental or otherwise to children.
As women move out of the Home Group space and into the broader society they take these objectives with them, and this leads them to try to gain power over that society in the same way. So, although the impetus is evolution and reproduction, this is expressed as a desire for power. That is why the abortion debate is so polarised: nothing can ever be allowed to challenge a woman’s power over her own body, even the rights of her unborn child.
Men’s Best Bet
Men’s best evolutionary bet is to impregnate as many fertile women as possible. They have no need to participate in the rearing of children, in order to reproduce their genes; in fact it mitigates against their reproductive interests. Men are powerfully motivated to have sex, but in a society where women have power over their bodies and so control the supply of sex, this is only available under the rules defined by those women. This is organised such that men are required to focus on one particular woman. They become the sexual property of that woman.
This explains, on the one hand, why men are always checking girls, and on the other, why marriage exists; to prevent men from impregnating the large numbers of women that they would do, were they able. The notion that marriage turns women into property is an egregious lie*; it makes men the property of women. The price is sex.
Further, in order to secure mates, men are required to compete with each other, because women, with power over their reproduction, are choosy. Money, status, authority — for men these are all sexually-motivated concerns. Success in them improves their chances of sex and so of reproducing.
In other words, men have to compete to get sex because women have power over their own bodies, and women have evolved this power because it is a benefit to them. Remember, the population of any society is dependent on the number of successful mothers, not fathers. Penetrating as many women as possible would be a reasonable strategy for a man; but being a good mother — that means, one who raises children to sexual maturity — is a successful strategy for a woman. And because women control the access to sex, they have power over men.
So, while both are rooted in the need to reproduce genes, men think in terms of sex and women in terms of power.
Strategies and Imbalance
Women have evolved strategies of cooperation and long term group planning, because these help them to maintain power over their own reproduction against bigger, stronger, more violent men. Men have have evolved strategies of competitiveness and rapid action, which make them more attractive as mates and so more likely to get sex. These, together, are what make Homo sapiens so successful. This is the human bargain. Taking one of them away results in catastrophic imbalance — and that is what we are seeing today.
The problem today is that feminists deny the root of this bargain, which is an innate, evolved, set of sex-specific, different trait characteristics, known collectively as ‘gender’. This denial they have borrowed from Marxism. But gender is what makes human society work.
Feminism, in order to promote its collectivist Utopia, denies the existence of these characteristics, which can actually be measured. Do men grow boobs? Do women grow beards? No, except in a statistically insignificant and anomalous number of cases. But science-denial is not new for the Left; it is in its bones. Truth must never be allowed to impede the cult’s objectives; and that applies as much to Feminism as Marxism.
As women, in the West, have moved out of the Home Group and begun to penetrate the broader society, they demand the same power as they have within the home group, and this is why we see such massive hostility towards masculinity.
Balante: a real matriarchy
What happens in real matriarchies, like the one in Balante, in the Philippines, where I lived in 2017? In Balante, men are practically invisible, because the village is a Home space and so women have authority. There is no expression of masculinity. When men want to be masculine, they go to the spaces that are allotted for that, notably the basketball court or one of the public areas where one finds more-or-less ad-hoc benches. Here are the stubs of cigarettes and the evidence of male society, and most afternoons and evenings, men congregate here to be masculine. They do not do it at home, because women control that space. So men have their spaces, separate from women’s spaces.
In the West, where woman have already destroyed their matriarchies at the behest of Feminists, women are almost obliged to enter the space of work that would always have been the Away (Men) group’s preserve and, as their numbers have increased, so does the pressure for them to exercise power over this space too. In other words, these spaces become part of the Home Space, when women are present in sufficient numbers.
The result is that masculinity is suppressed within them and eventually the men will move out, leaving only women and the not-men. These are, as I have explained before, homosexual and other gender non-conforming males; the latter includes those males whose strategy is to appear less masculine in order to secure sex from women conditioned to reject masculinity.
In the West we already see the results of this. Young men are not entering the workplace. They’re not marrying. They are occupying other spaces, often online ones. The fact that online porn is so ubiquitous means that sexual gratification is available to them without women.
This has had consequences for both men and women. It is the root of the ‘Incel’ movement, which is dangerous in its assumption that all men should get sex, as well as the MGTOW one, which is reasonable and is just a modern take on a very old practice. Men are perfectly capable of living without long-term relationships with women and always have been.
(As an aside, this is the reason feminists are so hostile to prostitution and pornography. It has nothing to do with ‘protecting vulnerable women’ and everything to do with controlling the availability of sex, thus controlling men and thereby society. I will be writing more on this.)
5 Replies to “Power – women, sex – men: how we think”
We could solve this problem easily by state policies which support both – parents staying at home and parents working. Large tax reduction for having children, money given by the state for those who choose to stay at home and state financed kindergarten. This would allow anyone to make their choices as they please. You are always speaking about averages, but these always come with a standard deviation. Why force the most intelligent women into a role where they are bored? The male sphere has a lot of different roles where the female sphere has a single one – cooking, cleaning and raising children. As a scientist I have to admit that I love my physics. Why deny me that?
Hi Alex. Sounds way too statist to me. I agree with fiscal support through taxation and other pro-natalist policies but I strongly disapprove of state funding for kindergartens and crèches. The way to improve future generations is to ensure that they are educated, at home, by their own mothers, not dumped in baby holding cells. We know that the indoctrination of leftist ideology today begins right in these nefarious places and they need to be closed, not supported. Women should not be working in order to fund care of their children by third parties and the state should not be subsidising that choice if they make it. I would far rather see fiscal incentives, either through tax breaks or direct subsidy, towards women in established relationships who have children so that they can stay home and educate them.
How could any person be bored educating their own children? Young minds \are amazing — who would not want to be amazed by them? It sounds to me as if you have bought into the Marxist-feminist ideology already. And while I have no doubt you can make great contribution in physics, no contribution to society could possibly be greater than the upbringing of future generations.
There’s nothing to stop women going back into their profession, after taking time off to raise children. The central lie here is that somehow, raising children is demeaning. It is a lie that will have to be corrected and that will take much work, given that our education system is corrupted, from top to bottom, by Marxist-feminist ideology. Frankly I think the entire edifice needs to be torn down, the sooner the better.
Interesting thoughts, and I agree with most of them, especially those in your comment, above. A few times in school I got made fun of by the other girls when it inevitably came time for teachers to ask “What do you want to be when you grow up?” and mine was always “a mother”. I always got many laughs from the other kids, saying, “Duh, we know that, but what else? A doctor? A teacher?” I always replied “just a mother”.
Fast forward many years and I found myself drawn to homeschooling, with a husband that was gone with the military many months, or even 3 different times; an entire year. I didn’t think I could do it; didn’t think I was smart enough, but there is so much help out there now in the way of books, videos, tutors, etc…I learned right along with them and it rekindled my love of history. I will always look back gloriously on those days, but those those little children were so cruel-they grew up and left me!! *insert crying meme here* haha
You must log in to post a comment.