A couple of hundred years ago, women in the West had good cause to complain. They did not have the vote, were denied the right to apply for senior positions and in some cases, were little more than chattels of their husband. However, thanks to their persistent lobbying and brave protests, and the sympathy and support of many men, the campaign for female suffrage was eventually successful. Women in the West were granted the vote and the right to stand at elections roughly 100 years ago. (It is more in some places and less in others.) In the years since, the Feminist lobby has pushed for everything they could think of, and have been granted pretty much all of it.
We now have: paid maternity leave, female quotas in many political parties, apprehended violence intervention orders, divorce on demand, abortion on demand, single mother's pensions, 60-40 divorce settlement with 85% custody and ongoing alimony in the woman's favour, men-only associations banned but female-only allowed, positive workplace discrimination, misandrist rhetoric acceptable but the misogynist equivalent howled down, rape shield laws that allow vindictive women to lie to a court without proper scrutiny and the largely unchallenged supremacy of feminist dogma at all universities throughout the West.
We also see the systematic infiltration and domination of ALL human interactive employment, such as: Human Resources, Teaching, Bank Telling, Government Offices, Shop Assistants and most jobs that were previously termed "Clerical". Women have also made significant inroads into more traditionally masculine areas such as: Police, Armed Forces, Politics, Senior Management, Medicine, Science and the Legal Profession. Meanwhile, traditional female jobs such as Secretarial, Reception, Home Cleaning and Child Minding, continue to be almost entirely filled by women.
This is all very well for women, but what has happened to men since women have selfishly taken as much as they can get? They have lost their clerical jobs, being passed over most of the time in favour of a female, they have lost their homes and children when their marriages failed, their sons have spent most of their school life being taught almost entirely by women, none of whom understand what it is to be male, they have been emasculated by the law, their central core of maleness has been ridiculed in the media and they have been subtly forced to see themselves as second class citizens. Is it any wonder that they have turned to drugs, alcohol, depression and suicide in ever increasing numbers?
Yes, women once had a legitimate complaint, but NO MORE!
The pendulum has swung TOO FAR!
IT IS TIME TO RESTORE THE BALANCE!
In this rather lengthy and unashamedly politically incorrect essay I will take you through the main areas where the Feminist lobby has changed the nature of society and look at how these changes have impacted the lives of men and boys for the worse. Along the way I make the point that much of our behaviour is rooted in our animal ancestry and that since our two sexes are socially quite different it is stupidity to treat them both the same. Finally, I suggest a return to a more tribal society, where men and women obey different rules, and I provide clear goals to be achieved in doing this.
When I was attending Primary School in the 1960s, there were an equal number of boys and girls in the classes, and a roughly equal number of men and women teaching us. I had Mrs Brown in Grade 5 and Mr Noonan in Grade 6. The Headmaster was male. At my private secondary school in the 1970s there was a predominance of male teachers in years 7-10, but once the school became coeducational in years 11 and 12, there were roughly equal numbers of men and women teachers. The Headmistress was female. Today in Australia, male primary teachers are rare. I have even heard of cases where an ENTIRE school does not have a single male teacher! As yet there are still plenty of male teachers in secondary school, but it is not hard to imagine the same kind of sex creep occurring there as occurred at the primary level.
This domination of schools by women has many effects, which impact the lives of all who pass through them, in many cases, (especially for boys), for the worse.
Equal numbers of each sex in the teaching staff throughout a child's development mean plenty of role models for the child to observe and copy. This doesn't mean that all teachers are good role models, but there should be enough variety for the child to develop a balanced view of adult behaviour.
A lack of male authority in a school has the effect of alienating male children. Boys know damn well that they are different to girls and will not grow up to be women. They instinctively know that females don't fully understand them, and when they find themselves in trouble they don't trust female authority to give them a fair go, especially if the plaintiff is a girl. And rightly so: even with the best will in the world a male can't fully understand a female, nor a female a male. Extreme female dominance breeds oppression and mistrust amongst boys, exactly the same as in the distant past for girls, when all the teachers were men.
A boy who feels alienated because of his sex will likely lose interest in school work, quickly fall behind, become a "trouble maker", and finally drop out altogether, resulting in a depressed, angry and ignorant young man with poor life prospects. It is easy to see how such a man can lurch from one failed relationship to another, struggle to hold down a job, perform badly as a parent, drift into alcoholism and get into trouble with the law. All because his school lacked male authority.
This is not to say that male authority will be easier on the boy, far from it! Boys understand discipline and authority, and when they have transgressed a law that they accept, they EXPECT to be pulled up for it and punished. Boys respect toughness and they expect sanctions to be hard but fair. Female punishments, like having your name written up on the board and losing demerit points, are a joke to most boys, especially the problem ones. They expect punishment for an offence to be immediate and painful. All this was known before the beginnings of schools, and the corporal punishments of the past were set up with precisely this in mind. Notwithstanding the protests of the weepy female do-gooders who removed this sanction, and the appreciable instances of abuse of this system, the fact is that it WAS generally effective in instilling discipline and creating a quiet place where boys had little alternative to concentrating on their school work. Boys are tough, and, (within reason), can cop a few stripes of the strap or the cane, provided it is fair. When a boy is thus punished by a male authority, he will generally accept it, be glad that it is quickly over, and will respect the system and the man who punished him. This is a male thing that goes back to our primeval heritage and it really HAS to be between males. Women don't even understand male discipline, how can they ever hope to administer it?
Women don't like confrontation, competition and the survival of the fittest. It is inate in their mothering instinct that children should play happily together, with no bullying, and no one should get more than anyone else. This is fine in kindergarden or early primary school, but it doesn't reflect the reality of the adult world and it denies the evolutionary force that made us all what we are today.
Mothers might not like it, but some people are better at some things than others! Some people can do maths and some can't. Some people are tone deaf and others are not. Some people are simply more intelligent that others and will cream, even the average, at any mental test you can devise. Conversely, some people are just plain dumb, and will never be any good at any brain work whatsoever. It makes women sad to see the frustration of the stupid and the way that exams weed them out and so they feel they should like to do something about it.
The first thing women do is to let everyone pass. Well, perhaps not everyone, but these days only a very few actually FAIL. In my day it was mandated that 40% would fail a given test. Now THAT'S weeding out the weak! Ok, it hurts to fail, but at least you had plenty of company.
The next thing women did was to de-emphasise assessment by exam. After all, such a practice discriminates against people who are not good at exams. It discriminates against people who don't know their subject more likely!
What these women have failed to grasp, is that society NEEDS discrimination! Society NEEDS the best to float to the top. Society NEEDS the talentless to be weeded out. Society does NOT need the mediocre clogging up the corridors and tutorial rooms of tertiary institutions. Baristas, PR agents, telephone consultants and swimming pool managers do NOT need a degree!!! If a boy has no mental ability, let him go off at 16 and do an apprenticeship like so many did in the old days. There is no need for him to finish year 12. If a girl wants to be a hairdresser or a waitress, let her go. Society needs those jobs after all.
The old system of a 3 hour exam, under surveillance, assessed by an external authority was tough, but it was fair! You knew your stuff or you didn't and cheating was almost impossible. It was also supremely objective, since the assessor had no idea who you were. Including large slabs of course work completed at home without supervision, and assessment by teachers who know you, has meant that copying and favouritism are now rife. Results no longer pick out the brightest, but instead reward the try-hards, the sycophants and the cheats. Is it then any surprise to find our society is now full of such people?
Perhaps the most insidious problem with women dominating the teaching profession is the creeping syllabus change. To a significant extent, the things that are taught to a students at school dictate the way they see the world, the things they do later and their behaviour as adults. A blinkered, hard-line, religious school, full of incorrect thought and arbitrary rules, such as set up by the Taliban for example, will tend to produce a repressive and paranoid society that drags its citizens back to the stone age. A school that values music will tend to produce musicians. A school that is obsessed with sport will tend to produce sports stars. When there is a more or less consistent syllabus and funding model spread across all schools, the country will tend to produce graduates embodying the values inherent in that, and, before too long: an entire society that reflects that syllabus. Nowhere else in our world is there such a means for engineering a specific society.
When I was young and men were still in control of education, the focus was on the "hard" sciences. Intelligent boys studied Pure & Applied Maths, Physics, Chemistry and English (which was compulsory). Most girls, and the average boys, studied the "light" subjects, like: Legal Studies, Geography, History, LOTE and General Maths. Arty-farty students studied: Fine Art, Music, Drama and English Lit. There were a wide range of subjects, but there was no doubt what carried the prestige, and most of the brightest did hard science.
It was men that developed the concept of "Scientific Thought" from which sprung "The Enlightenment", and it is not surprising that scientific thought is male thought. This doesn't mean that women can't do good science, but it DOES mean that it will be far less natural for them, and they will be far less likely to hit the heights. When males were in charge of curriculum, male thought predominated and schools churned out people who believed in black and white, right and wrong, hard work, merit, rational thought and SCIENCE! Such people made society rich and productive, with sensible laws, high educational standards, numerous inventions, infrastructure that WORKED, social responsibility and an efficient defence force. In short, male thought made society what we had in the 1960s.
Female thought, on the other hand, doesn't like hard and fast statements, discrimination on merit, difficulty, competition, narrow focus or logical deduction, and as a result, since they took power, we have seen the dumbing down of syllabus, the de-emphasis on assessment, the introduction of wishy-washy concepts like "post-modernism", the de-emphasis on hard science and the reduction of "Hard Art" subjects like Music Performance. The society created by the graduates of female thought, as we can see already, is self-serving, lazy, incompetent, wishy-washy, vain, consumption obsessed, foolish, and incapable of standing up for what is right, where all the hard jobs are out-sourced to foreigners. In short, it is the world of a spoilt little rich girl and is completely unsustainable.
Men and women are DIFFERENT! Not only physically but also mentally. Every child knows this instinctively. It is a mystery to me why one idiot branch of feminist thought that insists we are not should have gained global currency, but it has! The damage that this wrong-headed idea has done to men and women and inter-sex relations since it came on the scene is incalculable. If you are going to build a structure that works well it must rest on secure foundations, and two of the foundations of human society are 1) what constitutes a man, and 2) what constitutes a woman. If you get these two wrong the whole system is simply going to collapse.
It is BEYOND DOUBT that we evolved from apes, who evolved from proto-monkeys, who evolved from shrew-like insectivores, who evolved from reptiles etc. We still have the DNA of those creatures in every cell of our body!!! No one with any sensitivity who has looked into the eyes of a Orang-Utan can doubt that we share a common ancestor. (Unless of course they are a double-thinking religious nut case.) Not only do we look similar, but we behave similarly. The social mechanisms of gorillas and chimpanzees have been well studied over the years, and it has been obvious from the start that males and females are different, not only physically but socially. Everyone knows that males and females are different throughout most branches of the animal kingdom, so why should there be any doubt that the same should be true in human society? Stuffed if I know, but it does prove that: BULLSHIT BAFFLES BRAINS, and also that: IDEOLOGY CAN MAKE YOU BELIEVE ANYTHING.
We all know that bulls fight over cows, that roosters boss their hens, that the top dog keeps discipline with his teeth, that the silverback gorilla thumps his chest, that all females want sex with the alpha-male, that all males are happy to have sex with any female, that lone wolves and seals are generally males, that the lamb sticks close to its mother and that chimpanzees have their own matriarchal dominance hierarchy. In EVERY branch of the mammal class, males and females exhibit different social behaviours. Different social roles and responsibilities have served our mammalian relatives well over millions of years, and so should they suit us.
Unlike females, males are built to fight. Males fight outsiders for territory and they fight internal rivals for the right to mate with females and the right to lead the troupe. For this reason, males are physically larger and stronger, (in general), than females. But it is not only physically that men are adapted to fight, there is a mental adaptation too. It takes a certain mental attitude to fight. You need to be disciplined, aggressive, violent and courageous. You need to be able to hand out pain and to be able to take it. You need to be mentally tough as well as physically.
It is a man's strength and ferocity that is his POWER! It is his BIRTHRIGHT! It is part of WHO HE IS! It is GRAVEN in every cell of his body! Women are afraid of his power because he can use it against them. They don't understand it because they don't share it: It is not their job to fight.
But just because a woman is afraid of a man's power is no reason to try and kill it. Sure, no one wants to be brutalised by a large bully, but that does not mean that a man's birthright should be thrust into the outer darkness as though it were an object of SHAME! Aggression, courage and brute force: they are greatly admired on the sporting field, so why should they be squashed flat in society at large?
In any event: A woman has power of her own over men, as we all know! Her sexual allure can bring a big man to his knees and a tough guy to tears. This kind of power is completely unfair to men, most of whom have no answer to it, yet you don't hear an outcry against it in the West. On the contrary: when patriarchal Islamists institute the wearing of the burqa to take it away, you hear the cry from the Feminists, who can't bear to see a woman lose her power.
A woman also has the "Motherhood Mandate", similar to chimpanzees, and most men find it difficult to stand up to their wives on matters inside the home. This power too is completely unfair to men, as they are hard coded to cede control of the nest to the woman, yet there is no move afoot in the West to suppress this unfair advantage.
In days long past, a man who was big but dim, was a valued part of society. Perhaps he was a blacksmith who could wield a heavy hammer for 8 hours a day. Perhaps he was a farmer who could man-handle the pigs and hold the plough steady in the furrow. Perhaps he was a soldier who could hold the line against a charge and force a spear through the hauberk of an enemy. A valued part of society, with respect and a wife. But what is he today? A bully of a policeman? An overweight alcoholic lounging around on the dole. A cleaner perhaps, working for the man, for a pittance without respect. The jobs for the strong have all gone. Trench digging is done by machine now. Goods are stacked by fork lift. Farming is largely done by tractor and computer.
Such a man in this world might find the frustration, poverty and lack of respect too much one day, and unleash his power, without thought or regard for the consequences and find himself in a court room, at risk of his liberty. Who shall take the part of big man, who used his strength against another? And if his victim were a woman, is he not guilty already? If the woman were an opportunist of the lowest morals and smallest heart, would that have bearing on the case? If she used her power on this defenceless man who lacked the wit to see her game and the wisdom to stand aside? And if, when he finally saw true, he let fly with the only power he had, to fight back against his perceived injustice, of what is he guilty?
Guilty of being a man!
"Til death do us part"... blah, blah, blah. Vows are stupid things, since people cannot and should not speak for the future. Even with the best intentions, people change, the unexpected happens and people often grow apart. Such things are natural and it ill behoves society to attempt to keep a couple together when cohabitation has become incurably painful. It is, of course, unfortunate if children are involved, who wish their parents to stay together for ever, but their wishes are not prime concern in this matter and the only solution is DIVORCE.
Yes, most of the couple's wealth is probably tied up in the family home, but both parties have a right to some of that shared wealth and it will probably need to be sold to give each party what is rightfully theirs. As for the kids, obviously they can't be in two places at once so a custody arrangement will need to be sorted out. All fine and good. The question is: what is a fair settlement?
In this country the wife will normally get 60% of the wealth and most of the custody. The husband can expect to get 40% of the wealth and see the kids only every second weekend. The husband will most likely also be subject to continued alimony, both for the children and his ex wife and he may well lose a large chunk of his superannuation.
So the husband, who may well have done all he could think of to keep the marriage together, and who has slaved for years to bring money into the marriage to get the home and cars, and who has shared in the upbringing of the children and taken them for holidays every year, suddenly finds himself out on the street, without enough money to buy a house. He can't see his beloved children except once a fortnight, with his salary significantly reduced, thanks to the alimony he must pay and without enough super to retire on. How does he feel?
And then he looks at his ex-wife: With 60% of their combined wealth she is able to buy another house or buy out his share in their original one. The alimony payments added to her own income mean that she has plenty of money, both for normal living and to pay the mortgage. She may even be able to afford to continue the annual holidays. She sees her children every day except for every second weekend. She doesn't need to negotiate anything within the home anymore. What's not to love? "Oh baby, I should have done this years ago!"
Look at these two situations and tell me that this is an EQUITABLE settlement.
"Oh, but its children's rights. It's all for the children don't you know.". Yeah right... And don't forget that it doesn't end, at least until the kids have grown up, and there's no way out. Is it any wonder that some fathers snap and do completely insane things, like kill their own children, just to get some measure of revenge? Don't get me wrong: I'm not suggesting that revenge on your ex is a justifiable motive for killing your own kids. I'm merely pointing out how stressed some ex-husbands can become, being on the receiving end of such SPECTACULARLY inequitable treatment before the law.
The problem is that the divorce procedure is still largely living in the distant past, when the wife stayed home and had no job and no real earning power. The underlying reality of the world has changed a great deal since then but the law has moved on not nearly enough.
Thanks to feminist lobbying over the years, most wives work and women's salaries are often greater than that of their husband. There is no need to ruin the man. A fair settlement would be 50% each of the combined wealth, 50% access to the children or whatever the couple wishes to agree on and 50% each of the cost of raising the children. No alimony for the woman herself.
The above is assuming that the couple had built up their wealth together over the course of a long marriage. In the case of gold digging women who marry someone rich, wait a while, then divorce him: the wealth that should be shared should be merely that which has been built up by the couple since they became married.
As for superannuation: The superannuation to be shared should be that built up by the couple in the course of their marriage, not what was put in either before or after it.
In the days when most women stayed at home to look after the children and keep house, most bank tellers were men, most teachers were men, personnel managers were men and the multitudes of clerks were men. Pretty well ALL police and army officers, doctors, judges, lawyers, senior managers, architects, engineers and scientists were men. If a woman took a job it was probably as a secretary, nurse, librarian, hairdresser, seamstress, cleaner or child minder. Most professions were generally regarded as male or female and the other sex mostly kept out of it.
In those distant days, there were no computers, so legions of clerks were required, there were no robots and few specialised machines, so that manual jobs requiring strength were necessary and common. Whatever a man's talent, training and physique, there was a position he could fill. Furthermore, since job interviews were always conducted by men, he could be sure that his sex was never a factor if he were passed over for some one else.
Certainly, this was a tough environment for a woman who wanted a "male" job. I appreciate that, but it has been covered a great many times elsewhere, and anyway this is an essay about men, so I will not be dealing with their struggle here.
Since those days, the advent of computers and specialised machinery has forced men of moderate talent (who were clerks), and men of low intellect and good strength (who were labourers), onto the dole, disability pension or into a job that doesn't suit them, such as telephone sales, computer operation, industrial cleaning or plant maintenance. This is not the fault of women, but the removal of all the human interactive jobs as male options IS!
Men and women are genetically built for different purposes and it is a genetic characteristic of females that they like to build social networks. They tend to avoid conflict and try to keep people happy, even if this means that the job itself suffers. Males, on the other hand, will tend to put the job first, even if it means conflict. The effect of this difference is that, all other things being equal, most people prefer to deal with a woman when face to face interaction is required.
Not only do most women excel at dealing with the public, but because they often have a pleasant demeanour and tend to tell the boss what he wants to hear, they tend to be promoted over men who are better at the job. Incidentally, this advantage is known as: "Social Skills", ie the propensity and talent to lie, cheat and suck up.
The situation is more insidious yet, because female humans, like chimps, tend to form an exclusive matriarchy. Once they get into power they push out all the males. Men know they aren't wanted in a largely female organisation, they immediately feel uncomfortable and it's not long before they are pushed out or are put into an apparently harmless situation where they have little choice but to leave. This genetic hard-wiring for matriarchy means that once you let women into an organisation you need to be very careful to enforce a quota system, otherwise it is only a matter of time until they take it over completely and men are frozen out for good.
Because males are designed for narrow focus, high concentration and deductive reasoning, they are better at technical jobs. If you want your computer fixed you always go to a man, because you know that a woman is unlikely to be able to do it. If you want a bridge designed, or a television, or a vacuum cleaner, you go to a man. Sure, there are women who work in engineering and computing, but they aren't the best at it.
It's not only the highly technical jobs, like computing and engineering where males excel, in fact men shine at any PRACTICAL work. Whether it's plumbing, carpentry, mechanics, landscaping or being a commercial chef, men's focussed, no-bullshit, "job comes first", approach gets the result that is required. Most women in such a position will dither and talk and change their mind and the result will be slow and second rate.
Since men and women are hard wired with different abilities, it makes sense to channel them into jobs that suit those abilities. Positions where human interaction is more important than the job, or in fact, IS the job, such as: PR, sales, front-of-house, waitressing, hairdressing etc should be given to women. Positions where the job is critical and human interaction largely irrelevant, such as: computing, accounting, line maintenance and boiler making, should be given to men.
There are also other characteristics that predispose one sex to a specific job over the other. Only women can be mothers, so any job that requires a motherly touch, such as nursing, kindergarden teaching and child minding should go to women. In general, it is men who are big, strong and brave, so positions such as bouncers, crowd controllers, trench diggers, firemen and furniture removalists, should go to men.
Then there are positions that are politically important in the running of the country and the induction of a national philosophy, so these must be split evenly between the sexes, even though one sex may actually be better at a given one. These include: politicians, judges, police, teachers (especially secondary), clergy, union leaders and journalists.
Finally there are the Defence Forces, which properly belong in the male domain, since defence of the tribe and territory is genetically a man's responsibility. But these are one of the powers and foundations of the state, and so, technically, there should be a quota. Tricky...
There is no doubt that women are often creative types with talent for the Arts, so it is appropriate that they be involved it. At a community level it is often women that are the main contributors to this special activity. In the amateur and semi-professional ranks, most artists are women, most singers and orchestral players, almost all dancers and at least half of all actors, poets and authors are female. Not only do they participate but they also tend to be involved in the running of the numerous artistic happenings around the country.
Because The Arts is the opposite of hard science, it is often women that study it academically, first at secondary school and then at university. Being "qualified" in this manner, it is often women that obtain the paid posts in the day to day running of the Arts industry.
Thus it is that women have the major influence on The Arts in this country, both at the community level and in the running of the industry in general. This might not seem a problem except for the fact that despite being generally under-represented at the amateur level, it is MEN who produce the best art at the highest level. Feminists will often dispute this assertion, counter-asserting that there are numerous female artistic geniuses, and that the fact that they are not as famous as the men is purely male chauvinism. Yes, well, they can make that argument, but you will generally find that such people are fairly extreme in their feminism, and cannot be regarded as impartial or balanced, hence their argument cannot be taken as anything more than feminist propaganda. Less extreme feminists will generally concede that the best art has indeed been done by men, but that women might have done as well had they been given the opportunity. Well, I think it is clear that female artists in the West have had ample opportunity over the last 100 years to reach the heights, yet the great creative geniuses that people queue up to see, read and hear, remain men.
Take the world of painting: Everyone knows of DaVinci, Van Gogh, Constable, Picasso, Botticelli etc, but where are the women? What candidates would you consider? Beatrix Potter? Frida Kahlo? Elisabeth-Louise Vig?e-Lebrun? Marie-Denise Villers? May Gibbs? Don't get me wrong, I love the work of these artists and also of the many lesser known women artists whose work I see at local exhibitions. I would be happy to hang their work on my walls and they can certainly paint better than me, but they don't have that knock-out factor of the great masterpieces by the famous men.
The same is true in the domain of music composition, where there is no female equivalent to Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Mozart, Puccini, Handel etc. There is no doubt that women are amply blessed with musical talent, so if all other things were equal, one would expect to see an equal share of female composers of genius. Such is clearly not the case. I have suffered through performances of modern classical female compositions and the best I can say for them is that they are no worse than the modern classical male compositions. There are also a vast array of second rate female "Singer Songwriters", who seem to attract plenty of adoring fans, but I perceive their music to be derivative, wet and self-indulgent and I have no doubt that they will not be remembered beyond their generation.
I must, of course, mention literature and poetry here. We've all heard of Shakespeare, but other famous male authors include: John Keats, James Joyce, Ronald Tolkien, John Milton, Ogden Nash, Jack Kerouac etc. Famous female authors include: Emily Dickinson, Agatha Christie, Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, Sylvia Plath, Pam Ayres etc. I don't wish to denigrate female authors, and there are plenty whose works I have enjoyed, but it seems clear to me that the BEST male authors are a class above the best females.
The same story applies to ALL the artistic genres: An abundance of females at the bottom, but few at the top, and none at the rank of genius. Even in ballet, the domain of the prima donna, all the famous choreographers are male. I suggest that artistic talent alone is not enough to reach the absolute heights; you need something else as well, and that something is only present in MALES.
Works by the best male artists have a number of characteristics that set them apart and keep people coming back to admire them even hundreds of years after their deaths.
So we have an Arts system that is dominated by women, especially at the lower levels, but the works that people want to experience, and those that will be remembered, are mostly by men. This is a system that is not likely to produce "good art", for various reasons:
There is no doubt that the home is the woman's domain. It's the nest, the refuge, the place where her children are reared and the food is cooked. It's hard wired in a woman's DNA and it isn't going to change. The man, on the other hand is supposed to be out of the house during the day, hunting game, harvesting grain or defending the tribe. The man's domain is OUTSIDE the home, the woman's is INSIDE.
Well that's the age-old demarcation. Unfortunately, society has changed and our DNA has not, so that many men are home a lot more than they once would have been, most women are home a lot less, and the opportunity for conflict is thus much greater. Furthermore the home itself has grown much larger and richer than ever before which has further complicated the social dynamics.
Because the home is the woman's domain, every room that she spends time in she tends to see as HERS and often insists on control of. Control, not only of the furniture and decor but also of the activities that take place therein. This might be fair enough in rooms where she is likely to be the main occupant, such as the kitchen or the laundry. But the bedroom? Since both men and women spend equal time there, why should the woman be entitled to sole ownership? Yet walk into almost any married bedroom and you will see a woman's room! Paintings of roses on the wall, lace curtains, floral bedspread... These are hallmarks of a woman's psyche, you won't see any of that in a single man's bedroom.
The lounge room is the most critical room in the house with regard to the battle for control, because it is there that men and women spend their greatest amount of waking home time. It is also roughly equal time, so the odds are even and the prize for control is very large. The lounge dominated by a woman will be tidy, with flowers in vases, a modern suite with extra cushions, recently painted walls, a visually tasteful audio system with no apparent wires and the TV left on the soap opera channel. In contrast: a male dominated lounge will exhibit a large TV, set to the sporting channel, a loud and obvious audio system with wires everywhere, a video games set up, a moderate level of mess and a remarkable lack of interest in furniture and decor. Of course these are merely stereotypes and there are a great number of exceptions and variations, but there is some truth in it nonetheless.
Since the man isn't too worried about furniture and decor, an agreement on these matters can probably be achieved quite readily. Since the woman probably isn't a geek, likewise the TV and audio. The conflict arises when the couple sit down together for the evening to watch TV. A typical example would be: he wants to watch sport and she wants to watch a movie. If they try to watch a movie together: he wants to watch an action film and she wants a romantic comedy. If they watch the news: he wants the hard news and she wants the light. Or perhaps he wants to play a video game and she wants to watch a game show...
Because of the difference between the sexes, there will often be conflict in their desired entertainment and there is really no effective compromise. The only solution is for one of the combatants to concede the room and go elsewhere. You can tell who is in control of most lounge rooms by the proliferation of "men's dens" in houses throughout the first world. In order to keep the peace and get what they want, men throughout the world retreat to their sanctum to watch Sport and Porn, play Video Games and listen to their Music.
When such a man's male friends arrive for an evening of relaxation they are immediately shunted off to the den, since the battle for the lounge room has already been lost. If the den is too small the friends won't come. In the home of the truly pussy-whipped, the man will not be allowed to receive male visitors at all! If the couple don't have the money for a den, the dominated male is forced to retreat to the garage, which, with it's collection of tools and machinery, it's lack of decor, and the accoutrements of carpentry and mechanics, is absolutely the last bastion of the male psyche. It is from this that the notion of "men's sheds" has arisen. It is true that a good shed is a place where most men feel at home, but they can be cold and lonely, and unless they are really setup for the purpose, they aren't much good for entertaining.
Children complicate the situation, since a mother will often concede space to her children that she would not to her partner. If she has boys, they may well follow their father and the lounge may become a haven for sport and video games. If she has girls on the other hand, the lounge is likely to become a festival of teen soaps, music videos and chick flicks... Off to your den, husband!
The solution to all these problems in the rich and self-indulgent West, is a overgrown McMansion with a plethora of rooms: a bedroom for each child, a rumpus room, a den for Dad, a formal dining room, an open-plan casual dining/living room and kitchen, 2 bathrooms, 3 toilets, double garage, master bedroom, entertainment deck etc. Expensive to build and maintain, but perhaps it keeps everyone happy...
We all need a refuge where we get everything our way, so that we can enjoy being who we are. Compromise is all very well some of the time, but to keep ourselves sane, we all need some time and space where we don't have to compromise. Every house should have some space and time where each member can find that.
We were all children once, and for some years, completely helpless and entirely dependent on our mothers. She cooed and cuddled us, bathed us and fed us from her breasts. Not only that, but for 9 months before birth we existed SOLELY in our mother's womb and were delivered when it was time, to the outside world through her vagina. The roles of Motherhood cannot be assumed by a male, even if he wanted the job. We don't have a uterus, we don't have a vagina and our breasts don't lactate to any useful extent. Nor do men have the depth of selfless devotion to their offspring that women do. Women are built for the job and it is only fair and sensible that they should be the ones to do it.
When a mother beholds her new-born child she is simultaneously aware of, not only the child's importance to her, but also her importance to the child. Because the child is completely dependant on her, she holds the child's proxy vote on all aspects of the family life. She is hard-wired to deliver the baby's requirements at the expense of everything else. If the baby cries at 2am, she must get up and feed it. If it wants to play, she must play with it. If it wants to sleep, everyone must be quiet. The bond between mother and child is hormonal and you can expect real trouble if you get between the mother bear and her cub.
This is all as it should be, but the problem is that a mother becomes used to this feeling of power and starts to think that she has the RIGHT to control everything, child or no child! In most animal cultures the male leaves the female a free hand with her children, but slaps her straight down when she interferes with HIS domain. Such was once the case with humans, but is no longer an option. Repugnant as it may be to the feminist lobby: Without the resort to physical violence the male, unlike the female, has no way to enforce his will and has little alternative but to retreat or lose his soul.
Especially irritating to men is the utterly false notion common to some mothers, that THEY have done something no man can do: They have SINGLE-HANDEDLY, with their DIVINE talent, CREATED another living being. It is understandable, when one considers the sacrifices mothers make for their children, that they might be tempted to exaggerate their part in the whole business, but to claim sole credit for creation is COMPLETELY WRONG HEADED. The truth is, that most of what their child is, is the result of hundreds of millions of years of genetic evolution, the most critical part of which is the moment of conception, when her egg and the sperm of her sexual partner united. In this matter, the contribution of man and woman is EQUAL! In most cases, her greatest contribution to the make up of her child was choosing which man to have unprotected sex with.
I can see how a woman carrying a foetus inside her for 9 months might think that SHE was CREATING that child. However, any biochemist can tell you that the foetus is simply drawing nutrient from its surroundings, and that the growth is entirely due to the chemistry of that child and the hormonal imperatives on its host. Much as she might like to think that her love is making it grow, in fact her love is nothing but the response of her dopamine receptors to oxytocin, and the child would have grown EXACTLY the same in any suitable host. The REAL act of creation was the sex act and the 9 months of pregnancy was simply bringing it to term.
Likewise the act of delivery: I can see how the extended pain and strangeness of labour might cause a mother to imbue the process with a whole bunch of empowering mumbo-jumbo, but the fact is that it's just a matter of opening the cervix and pushing the baby out. For some reason this seems to have become a major problem for humans in the modern world but at the end of the day it is nothing more than the process of emptying the womb. The baby doesn't care whether it is pushed out through the vagina or pulled from a Caesarian incision. So long as it gets out safe and sound it matters not how it is achieved.
Don't get me wrong: I don't wish to demean mothers or to undervalue their role in pregnancy and birth. After all, someone has to do it, and in general women do it very well. But it's a JOB! A biological process. It's not some divine act that elevates all mothers to GODHOOD!
Apart from the acts of pregnancy and birth, mothers have a massive effect on the socialisation of the child. As their major indoctrinator, a mother has the power to spoil her child, fill its head with lies, overfeed it, intellectually undernourish it and prevent it from standing on its own two feet. Alternatively she may display good judgement and restraint, and set the child on the hard road to being an decent adult and worthwhile member of society. Good motherhood is a complex and difficult business that I will not attempt to deal with here, except to say that: forcing a load of incorrect feminist dogma down the defenceless metaphorical throat of a young male intellect is either going to cause a reaction against feminism later on, or produce a twisted mess: useless to his partner and a traitor to his own sex.
I have dealt with the inate psychology of men and women at various stages above, and I will not be going back through it all here. The quintessential point is that our psychology stems from our genetic inheritance and our animal ancestry. We are not IDENTICAL to any of the great apes, but we ARE very similar. An observation of any of the higher mammals will give an insight into much of human behaviour, and any such observation will leave you in no doubt that males and females behave differently.
One can get carried away with an academic approach to the matter, but that may well lead you astray and really we all know the truth anyway. It's the same truth that humans have lived with for millennia. Tried and true stereotypes and roles that have been handed down through the generations: Man hunts and defends. Woman cooks and looks after the children. Man runs the village. Woman runs the home. Man ploughs the fields. Woman feeds the chooks. Man philosophises. Woman does the laundry. Man fixes the car. Woman does the shopping. Man fiddles with the remote. Woman does the knitting. Man does the surgery. Woman does the nursing. Etc, etc, etc.
There's no surprises there, no revelation, we all know this stuff already. The surprise is that a group of social experimenters, philosophers and misandrists should have been so successful in pushing an ideology that we all knew at heart was wrong! So why did we swallow such drivel? My guess is that it comes from our big-hearted belief in the equality of Man: The ideology that sent the USA to war against itself. But equality before the law is quite different from equality between the ears and it is a testament to our inherent stupidity that we confused the two.
Men and women are different physically and psychologically. We need to remember this and factor it into the foundation of any society we attempt to engineer. This doesn't mean that one sex is superior overall, but it DOES mean that one sex will generally be better at certain jobs that the other. These I have dealt with in the section on employment.
For thousands of years we have been building up our Technology, philosophising about the "Nobility Of Man" and developing "Civilisation". At the beginning of the 21st Century we can stand back and look with pride at our shining achievement: We have a complex bisexual society, with separation of powers, checks and balances, religions, police forces, democratic parliaments, hundreds of thousands of pages of laws, regulated banking systems, multiculturalism, astonishing Artistic achievements, moderate sexual freedom, education as a right, health care for all, tolerance, anti-discrimination, votes for all, and yet, and yet...
And yet large numbers of men are depressed, insecure, uncertain and bitter. At one extreme, more men than ever are committing suicide. At the other extreme, massive numbers of young men don't know who they are any more. Do they wear their hair short or long? Should they shave or sport a beard? Should they join a fight or look down on the thugs who do? Should they follow the feminist dogma of their girlfriend or tell the bitch to shut up?
It is a fact that thanks to rapid technological development, society is changing with great speed in many ways. Society will always take time to adapt to such changes and in the interim many people may be somewhat confused. But there is one thing that NEVER changes, and that is who we are underneath it all.
Our religions, philosophies and laws are glorious to look at but they hide a grubby little secret, which is that underneath it all we remain animals. For centuries our leading thinkers denied this, and invented concepts like "the Soul", and "Man in God's Image", to try and prove that we were above it all. However, since the advent of the Theory of Evolution and the mapping of the genome sequences of humans, apes and other animals, it is no longer possible to deny that we are much the same emotionally as a dog or an ape.
Our society has been built on a lie: that we are noble and pure. Well we aren't! We are much the same as a wolf pack, a chimpanzee troupe or a baboon tribe. We do have certain powers however, that our genetic cousins do not, such as the ability to speak and think in abstract terms and the ability to deny our instinct for the sake of an abstract ideal. Such is the bargain of the law abiding citizen.
This is something of a bargain with Devil though, because in achieving a higher goal you lose the enjoyment of life that comes from following your biological imperatives. Such is what has happened to men. Over many centuries, men had slowly given up much of their original violent behaviour, in the name of religion and civilisation. This caused many a twist in the male psyche, and much resultant pain, but then along came women's liberation. Once more, men followed the high ideal and did the noble thing, sacrificing their own needs for the ideal of equality.
But as women began to influence the pillars of society they took no notice of a man's biology, nor did they consider the difference of their own. In fact they made the assumption that men were inherently the same as themselves, (something they had always known was patently untrue), and thus determined all manifestations of difference to be aberrant behaviour, which must be prevented or punished.
Already weakened by their own sacrifice of the centuries, and unready to cope with overflowing of aggression from the recently empowered world of women, many men simply keeled over under at the unexpected assault and granted the opportunistic Feminists everything they asked for, much of it at great cost to themselves and the other men.
This is the reason for the sickness of the male psyche across the Western World. Men have given up too much of themselves in pursuit of a noble but foolish goal. Women, I might add, have given up very little in contrast, which is why they are relatively happy. The Feminists will no doubt argue at this point that women didn't need to give anything up since they were the ones who were oppressed. Well I counter that argument by questioning whether a) they were really as oppressed as they appeared to be, and b) whether that sort of oppression is really as bad as it might appear from where we sit.
Modern Society is built on such shining ideals as Equality, Tolerance, Non-Violence and Freedom. I have no intention of tarnishing such fine edifices, but I do question whether they are the right ideals for US. Take a look at a baboon troupe. NONE of those ideals are present. The alpha baboon keeps his wives in line with his strength and teeth. You don't leave the troupe, and food and privileges are handed out according to the pecking order: There's NO equality.
It is repugnant to us to accept that underneath it all we are still like baboons, but like it or not, thanks to genetic theory, it is an incontrovertible fact. But I am an idealist of the highest order! I invented my own religion to embody the highest ideals, and I have dedicated my life to the future of humanity! I am unwilling to let go of those ideals, yet I cannot deny the reality of my own biology. A compromise is necessary and here is what I propose: A return to SOME of the tribal ways. Tribal ways are built on genetic imperatives, they are generally not built on noble ideals. Obviously we should avoid the most barbaric of tribal practices, but we MUST restore many of the less harmful. Here are they major changes to the foundations of society that I propose:
Yes, for today's world this is a radical agenda, and no doubt it will induce some rather profound and visceral reactions inside most of us. To be frank, I myself am surprised at where this argument led me, and even I found the conclusion disturbing. However, if one is to see clearly, one must dismiss one's prejudices and look at the flow of facts and where they lead. In this case it is without doubt that they lead back to a partial segregation of the sexes. It may seem like a scary new world, but we can take heart in the knowledge that in many respects we have done it before and it has already stood the test of time.
I intend that this essay should be beacon to disaffected and confused men all over the world, a light to restore to them the truth that has been cast into shadow by the wrong headed PC factions of our modern society. It is intended to provide a rational and analytical rallying point for such beleaguered men and restore some pride in who they are. It is also intended to provide a bulwark to the rapacious tide of selfish Feminism, a counter to the post-modern, pseudo-logic that ball-breaking feminist academics use to justify their depredations on the male psyche. It is a rock that I have placed in the wilderness to reassert our claim for the territory that has been taken from us. It is NOT intended to be misogynist in nature, and I have consciously avoided using it as a vehicle for abuse, (something I could easily have done). Concerned women may note and take comfort in the fact that I have not resiled from the concept of equal power, my solutions are all about separation of systems, rather than repression.
This has been a difficult essay for me to write. It has taken far longer that I expected. It has gone to places and depths that I did not foresee and it has engendered a new and unexpected societal basis. It is impossible to please everyone with any piece of work and with a subject like this: doubly so. I expect this will offend many people, especially Feminists. So be it! I have done what I think good.
Warren Mars - June, 2011