Most scientists that do not have an agenda agree that testosterone is the primary cause of those behaviors commonly called “masculine.” Under the influence of testosterone, boys are far more aggressive than girls. Boys play in groups with a definite pecking-order based upon physical prowess and strength. Competition and rank are the dynamics of the boy’s group. They brag endlessly about their toughness, strength, and ability. Boys are drawn to images and symbols of power—machines, weapons, and physical activity. Physical violence and risky behavior are seen at an early age. As they reach adolescence, testosterone levels increase dramatically and these behaviors become more pronounced. Young men are far more likely to engage in violence, risky behavior, even criminal behavior. They are far more likely to break the rules of society. Males take to math and science because these subjects are analytical and action-based. After puberty and when testosterone levels rise, males are equipped with a tremendous sexual drive. This causes innumerable stupidities and vices.
Prostitution and pornography, for instance, are basically male phenomenon. Porn-pushers, pimps, and strip clubs would go out of business if they had to rely on an exclusively female market. Among primitive cultures, warring over women is the most common type of violence. A trip to the local honky-tonk on any given Saturday night will reveal that things have changed very little in this respect. A man’s hormones have prepared him for independent action. The very definition of a man is him having a plan, seeing it through to completion, and enjoying the sense of accomplishment that goes with his success. “A man without a plan is no man,” said a philosopher. Naturally, men have been the traditional representatives of the social group because his hormonal disposition prepares him for independent action and directs his vision outward toward nature and other social groups.
The tendency toward independent volition is more commonly seen in males. Culture has merely built on a hormonal foundation and sought to cultivate it for the good of society. Margaret Mead correctly pointed out that one of the crucial problems of culture is how best to channel this independent streak in males toward constructive ends. If this independence is cultivated correctly, it can advance society. However if this independent streak is incorrectly cultivated or left to its own devices, it can tear society apart. It is a timeless truth in all cultures that men need to be “settled down.” Women and family have always played a crucial role in this settling process.
In the school yard, you will notice two things: in the far corner are groups of boys who are plotting some manner of rebellion against school rules; and standing closer to the teacher are the girls who are absorbed with watching those “bad” boys, so they can promptly inform their teacher about their latest insurrection. Boys have a natural independent streak and are several times more likely to defy the rules of society than girls. Girls, on the other hand, are naturally social, so they follow the rules. At its worst, the rebellious nature of males leads to crime. The large numbers of male prisons are monuments to this fact. And the vast majority of male inmates are incarcerated in their late teens or early twenties, when testosterone levels are at their peak. It is a fact when men reach their thirties, their tendency toward crime and violence decrease drastically.
But if cultivated correctly, this rebel can be turned into a leader of society. To be an effective leader ultimately requires independent volition. Males take to this naturally. Often leadership requires a defiance of accepted rules and practices, rebellion from the established norms. Very few really revolutionary, creative acts have occurred without its creator having to rebel against the accepted authority and standards, or at least rearranging the rules and standards in a creative fashion. Racked by civil war for over a century, Rome could no longer function as a republic. A man on horseback was needed. It was Caesar who risked exile, execution, and failure in crossing the Rubicon to found an empire that would last for five hundred years. In the 1790’s, the Jacobins virtually destroyed all social order in France. Power descended into the streets where the demagogue of the month ruled, so long as the mob was at his back. With unwavering resolve, Napoleon crushed the mob, brought social order to France, and ushered in the modern era for all of Europe. Copernicus and Galileo risked ostracism or worse for their cosmological system. Sometimes the system is corrupt, the authorities morally bankrupt. One needs to speak-up and risk torture, prison, and death. Martin Luther pointed to corruption in the church. When he was ordered to recant, he stood before the Holy Roman Emperor and declared, “Here I stand. I shall not recant.” William Walker accepted the hangman’s noose because he refused to give up his claim to the presidency of Nicaragua. The men of 1776 signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well it could have been their death warrants that they were signing. Most of the kings and learned men of Europe thought there was no way to cross the Atlantic Ocean, but Columbus defied them all and set sail into what most believed was certain death. So it was with a thousand leaders, inventors, explorers, creators. They braved ostracism, poverty, prison, torture, death because they were convicted by an idea and were determined to see it through to the end, society be damned. They were convinced that they were right and everyone else was wrong. These brave souls cleared the way for the rest of us, they ushered in the future that the rest of us cannot see.
There is, however, a thin line between genius and insanity, heroism and criminality. At his core this creative rebel is that school boy plotting in the corner of the playground. This trait of independent volition is a very male thing. Females rarely exhibit that something that says to the world, “This is my idea, my plan. I’m right. I will not reverse my course no matter the consequences.” Women stay closer to safety; they are more inclined to cooperation, to social conformity, and to deference.
The preceding pages seem to belie this fact. After all, I just finished discussing the various feminist “rebels.” This is only on the surface. Feminism is an offshoot of the larger egalitarian ideas that were hatched in the poisonous brains of men such as Rousseau, Baboef, Mill, Marx, and Engels. Mary Wollstonecraft’s Vindication was an imitation of the French Rights of Man. Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s Seneca Falls Declaration mimicked the Declaration of Independence. Sanger followed in the wake of the pervert Ellis. Friedan used conventional feminist ideas for her Feminine Mystique, ideas that were around at the beginning of the Twentieth Century. Millet was a typical Marxist. If there was no larger egalitarian movement, feminism, as we know it, would not exist. Feminism was a logical metastasis of egalitarianism. No other culture has allowed the disease of egalitarianism to spread into the home. Most cultures are fortunate never to experience this disease or they deal appropriately with it before it has a chance to infect the family.
The privilege of leadership has not always been a bed of roses for men, though. Men have paid a heavy price for their willful natures. If you go to Arlington, you will notice that those buried there are almost all men. And if you were to ask them if they preferred to die in the mud of Flanders or the snow of the Ardennes, most would say they would rather have died at eighty in bed. Travel around the Amazon or Papua New Guinea in areas experiencing heightened tribal warfare and you will notice a small ratio of men to women. On average, men die younger and live far more stressful lives than women. They are also more likely to live bitter, dissipated, angry, disappointing lives. Exclusively male societies—Old West mining towns, Army barracks, prisons—are cold, indifferent, unforgiving places. In contrast, women more often live longer because of family life, have deeper loving relationships, and usually die in bed with loved ones at their side. Even in areas where there is inadequate or primitive medicine, where death in childbirth is common, women live longer and less stressful lives. Every girl grows up with the knowledge that society generally looks out for her safety more than it does for boys. Though unfortunately it is not always observed, society usually makes physical assault on females a taboo. Boys go through life knowing they can loose teeth for misspoken words. When the Titanic went down, they had only enough life boats for half the passengers. And who were first in line? Women and children were saved first. Most of the men ended up as North Atlantic popsicles. Women have generally had it pretty good.
Estrogen drives women in the opposite direction, inside the social group. Girls do not like competitive groups. They prefer one-on-one friendships more. Throughout their lives girls almost always have “best friends,” with whom they share, nurture, and talk endlessly. They do not like confrontations, physical violence, for they prefer cooperation to competition. Only later after puberty will they compete for boys. Weapons, machines, and displays of power do not usually attract their interest. They prefer things of beauty, grace, and “cuteness.” They are less inclined to analytical things, but are more verbally inclined than their male counterparts. Girls learn to speak and write earlier and are better communicators than are boys. This generally is especially true when it comes to communicating emotions. Boys prefer to hide their emotions behind a thick exterior; girls are absolutely obsessed with such emotional “sharing.”
At puberty their hormones drive them to attract a mate. Consequently, girls become highly self-conscious about physical beauty and they use makeup, clothes, and jewelry to compliment their physical attributes. Young women derive immense pleasure from preening their beauty feathers and helping other females preen theirs. They are naturally tactile; men, on the other hand, generally do not like touching other men in an affectionate way. The sex drives of men and women are different: a woman wants to be wanted-passive enticement; a man simply wants active pursuit. To women, sex is secondary to emotional connection; with men, sex is primary. Females are modest and do not like overt displays of sexuality. And contrary to Millet, women do not like casual encounters. What women want more than anything else are deep long lasting interpersonal relationships with children, spouses, family, and friends. A female’s vision is focused inside the social group; she is the more social half of the species. The fact is, a woman’s hormonal disposition, rouses her to care far more about other people than do men. This is why they make better mothers, caretakers, counselors, teachers, etc. They are absolute suckers for the weak, wounded, those in need of help, which is the way it should be.
The roles of sex have evolved to accommodate these hormonal dispositions and ultimately have been in the best interest of each sex. The institutions that feminists see as repressive are, in fact, the creations of women themselves, through a kind of early feminism. Even though it has always been in the power of men to take women as slaves, they generally have not. Why is this so? They had mothers who loved them, and they want the same for their children too. They want companions, not cringing slaves. Women have acted as a civilizing force on men in this respect. And it was through the efforts of women that the institutions of marriage, dowry, virginity, courtship were evolved. Marriage ensures that a man will be there to provide security and support for the woman and her offspring. Remember, men are naturally polygamous. Early societies were almost always polygamous—one man with a few wives. The advance to monogamy curtailed a man’s sex drive, limited the number of his offspring, and concentrated his energies toward the upkeep of one woman and her offspring.
Women have a far greater involvement in sex. They are liable to pregnancy and that in turn requires a tremendous commitment. Holding men responsible through courtship customs that prevented premarital sex and required marriage vows before sexual relations, ensured that a woman’s interests were protected should pregnancy take place. Women protected themselves and their future children by keeping overheated men at bay and insisting that they meet certain requirements before marriage. Their virginity and dowries increased their worth in the eyes of male suitors and therefore often elicited more financially secure mates. And that most hated of institutions, the arranged marriage, took the search for a mate out of the hands of young lovers, who were often too blinded by passions, and placed it in the hands of more experienced elders. These elders were looking to the future when youthful passions wore off and practical considerations took over. None of these arranged marriages were perfect. No human institution has ever been perfect.
All of these institutions obligated a man to look after the interests of his female relatives. A network of security was supposed to protect a woman at every stage of her life. A father looked after his daughter. Brothers protected the honor of their sisters. A husband was obligated to care for his wife. And mothers in their old age could count on the care of their faithful sons. Women depended on this circle of protection. Men were supposed to protect women, not oppress them. Women were the chief architects of these institutions. Oh, you will notice the word “dependence” here. This is where feminists find fault. All this paternalism was a pretext for oppression, they argue. Women are fully equal to men and can take care of themselves; they do not need protection.
Like all egalitarians, feminists begin their argument from the normative conditions of civilization with its established and enforced laws. They ignore the origins of society and the world outside civilization, and the base of human nature which will never recognize civilization and reason as superior to its will. Outside the cocoon of law and order provided by civilization is the reality of naked competition which is the “State of Nature,” as Hobbes called it. There is only one law out there: the strong dominate the weak in a naked clash of wills—“The war of all against all.”52
The mother of social arrangements is war, meaning all social arrangements inside civilization are ultimately relative to the survival of that civilization itself. Naked competition, war, between human groups is the foundation stone upon which all societies are built. Ultimately, a nation’s security is in its war powers or the war powers of its allies. Societies rest upon the spear points, guns, and graves of its warriors. If you want to see where the United States gets its right to exist, do not go to the Library of Congress and read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, do not visit the Capitol or the White House; go instead to Valley Forge and Gettysburg, go to Arlington, and look at the white stones there. The sacrifices made by these brave warriors buried under these stones and who engaged in naked competition are the sources of America’s sovereignty and all the blessings that flow out of it, including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Congress, and the Presidency. For without their victories, there would be a different social arrangement in this country—one based on the will of those whom the gods favored in battle.
The philosophers and Natural Lawyers refuse to admit this, but like it or not, they are at liberty and peace to engage in their debates because of the soldiers and law enforcers that have solved a previous debate with weapons not words. Political power is the ability to control a person or people. It is certainly true that within civilization, the word, the law, the use and possession of moral authority provides the basis for community cooperation and those who wield these things effectively have great power. However, society itself is ultimately secured and its laws upheld through the use of force. Without force the nation and its laws cannot exist. Don’t believe me? Then remove the armies and cops, the jails and prisons, the prosecutors and judges. Do this and you will see from whence social order comes.
The state has its origins in military organization. To be a great band leader, a great chief, or a great king, one had to first be a great warrior. Only later, for very good reasons, were civilian and military organization separated to give efficiency and perspective to government. But they function as a team. No state, however, can shake its origins: the military-law enforcement arm of the state is the indispensable portion. Without it the state cannot defend its sovereignty or enforce its laws. Governments have existed as straight military orders, but not the reverse. Civilian government without military or police support is a debating society. Sovereignty is ultimately secured by force.
As the essential work in society, military duty has traditionally come with the privilege of leadership. Those who could not fight could not lead. Women and children cannot fight; they are not equipped physically or spiritually for war. So the leadership positions in all social groups were accorded to the traditional class of fighters: men. There are exceptions; some women have a taste for combat. However, this is not about exceptions. I am aware that the Soviets and Israelis briefly experimented with women in combat and the American military is now dedicated to an integrated force. But the Soviets and Israelis, for the most part abandoned their experiments. And America’s present status as a world power was acquired at Normandy and Iwo Jima, by an all male force. Its current experiment with women in the military is a case of social engineers indulging in egalitarian fantasies at the expense of national security. The more they indulge, the weaker the military becomes, and the more vulnerable is America’s sovereignty.
There is only one area of American society that remains untouched by the sex egalitarians: professional sports. Professional sports, especially the big three—baseball, basketball, football—are ruthlessly segregated by sex. Every now and then feminists talk about introducing women into all-male professional sports. Recently prayers were offered up to egalitarian heaven when Michelle Wei tried to make the cut for the men’s PGA tour. However, all the tried and true feminist arguments fall on deaf ears when it comes to professional sports. The tripe about absolute equality, about sex roles being relative to socialization, about the relativity of upper-body strength—all hold no water with sport fans. That the Navy Seals need women is one thing, but hell will freeze over when a woman takes the court next to Steve Nash. Why is this?-Because Americans take their sports seriously. The leftists can integrate the military—that’s fine—but they dare not touch the inner-sanctum of the NFL or the NBA. That Affirmative Action is jeopardizing national security is of no concern to most Americans, but the sports gods will forever curse our nation if a woman takes the field on Super Bowl Sunday.
Like it or not, women as a class, are dependents in a way men are not. “With protection goes obedience,” said the old Roman proverb. Women fill, maintain, and control the nest. Men provide protection and material support. In return for protection, women give obedience. It is a simple quid pro quo. The essentials are seen in all cultures for good reason—it works. All things considered, it has been an effective arrangement.
That one half of humanity has been held in a state of slavery by the other half is absurd. History does not work that way. Despite the changes over the past one hundred years, women and children are still as dependent as they were ten thousand years ago. The only thing that has changed are those doing the protecting. Fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons provided protection to women for thousands of years. As formal states arose, protection was divided between the immediate male relatives and the laws of the state. The survival of the state and its laws, however, was still in the hands of male armies and male law enforcers. Then, with the advent of the modern welfare state, many of the protections formerly provided by immediate male relatives now became the responsibility of the state. The nanny-state is a woman’s new family. She is now armored with a vast array of social welfare programs and protective laws. Pervasive propaganda encourages her to proclaim her “independence” from the old family and marry into the new welfare state. But make no mistake; her “independence” is completely dependent on the survival of the nanny-state. And the nanny-state is just as dependent on male warriors today as was the clan or tribe thousands of years ago. The feminist “revolution” and the “victories” it has won are actually the concessions of a society steeped in egalitarian ideas. Little has changed in this respect. Marriage and the other institutions that protected women for thousands of years were concessions as well. The formula of protection and obedience has not changed one whit.
If women were really held in slavery against their will and contrary to their interests, and brainwashed into accepting the unwanted role of wife and mother, the pages of history would be filled with actual revolutions. We would read about enumerable female George Washington’s and their Amazonian Armies smashing down constitutions and erecting new ones. But in four thousand years of recorded history, there is not one instance of this kind of sexual revolution, nor is there one example of the fabled matriarchate of leftwing mythology. The will has never subjected itself for too long to what it sees as arbitrary injustice. It will eventually revolt and establish a new order to its liking. That is what history teaches. The Helots resisted their Spartan masters; Spartacus raised his sword to mighty Rome; virtually every empire in history has had to cope with resistance movements. But there is not one sexual revolution of the sort Millet suggests is justified. Feminist advances in Russia, Israel, England, and America are not revolutions. They are the concessions of male created male protected societies. Whether women vote, hold political office, own or dispose of property has always been relative to this existential fact. Women have lived in dependence because they require it.
Life among the inmates in a male prison is a good example of the anarchic system, the state of nature outside of civilization. The average inmate is actually a muscular tattooed child that has never learned or was never taught the basic rules of civilization. He holds very few laws sacred and acts on base human instinct. Strength and weakness is the dynamic. Force is the only thing most inmates respect. If one inmate will not fight, he is often prey for those who can and will. If he cannot form defensive alliances with other inmates, he is vulnerable. Some inmates are able through strength or “prestige” to exist without having to align with the groups (independents). Elemental forms of similarity are the basis of the cooperative groups: race, language, and origins. What little moral authority there is exists within the groups. Outside the group, there is naked competition. Society emerges out of a similar system of anarchy and defensive alliances. It maintains itself through force in the face of that system with its armies, cops, courts, and jails. The anarchic system is the base; society is relative to that base.
If one wanted to test the feminist theory of absolute equality between the sexes, he could place, as Ruth Bader Ginsburg has suggested doing, a woman in a male prison. Ginsburg’s fantasies not withstanding, if a woman were placed in the general population of San Quentin or Angola Farm, she could not survive as independent, and because she cannot fight, she would not be accepted as an equal in any of the cooperative groups. She would be forced to take her place as a dependent. And in exchange for protection, she would need to offer something in trade. It does not require much imagination to guess what that something would be. The “social contract,” between the sexes begins there: protection and obedience. Imagine the difference between courtship and marriage, both of which place considerable requirements on the male suitor or spouse, compared to the straight, naked subjection as would occur in a prison, where the male protector can choose to take what he wants and give her nothing in return. A type of feminism has indeed been going on for thousands of years. It took millennia for women to evolve their relations with men. That is the real history of feminism. It is the story of protection and obedience, importuning and concession.
To some extent all of us are dependent on social support. Women and children, however, are natural dependents, for without the security provided by men, they could not survive. Lately, dependency has been given a bad name, but actually it is the origin of the social virtues. It is hard for humans to love an abstraction. One can claim to love humanity, the planet, the animals or what have you; but for most of us, true love comes out of a long personal relationship with another human being that we can see, hear, and touch. Love is consciously placing another’s interests before your own. “Love your neighbor as your self,” as the Christian ethic expresses it. This is difficult for us because our most powerful, natural instinct is self-preservation, self-interest. Placing another’s interest before our own can only happen as a result of conscious human choice.
Love is a uniquely human thing. Because they lack self-consciousness, animals cannot love in the same way. The animal mother, for instance, will instinctively protect her young right up to the point of sacrificing her own life. She will go no further. If it comes down to her life or the lives of her young, her self-preservation will kick in and she will abandon her young. Likewise, animals do not “care” for their young in a conscious way. Instinct causes the mother to nurture her young for only a specific, predetermined period of time. When that period is up, she will kick them out of the nest, never thereafter concerning herself with whatever became of her brood. Bears do not return to visit their parents, and do not put aging relatives in rest homes, or leave an individual memorial when their “loved-ones” dies. Burial practices are strictly a human thing. Human mothers, on the other hand, quite often make the conscious choice to sacrifice themselves for their children. And it’s quite common to find forty-year-olds living at home with their parents. This holds true for all other human relations as well. Humans love their children consciously, and they recognize them as individuals, even, after death in memories that animals lack.
Dependency more often than not teaches us to love, for the common trait of love is doing for another when we do not feel like it. At first, self-preservation forces us to do a thing for another because we depend upon them, but after awhile, we do for them without our self-preservation forcing us to do so. Our powerful memories have imprinted them into our minds and we are able to make the conscious choice to put their interests ahead of our own. Dependency thus teaches us to love. The more existentially dependent, the more love. The bond of love between mother and child is by far the strongest in the human experience. Why is this so? The bond between mother and child contains the greatest amount of dependency as compared to all other human relationships. The child is completely dependent on the mother for his or her survival. Influenced by maternal instinct and culture and the habit of caring for the child over a number of years, the mother begins to consciously identify the child’s interests with her own. She cannot do without her child’s love. Her happiness is dependent on the child’s happiness. Social bonds of dependency and consequent love expand outward from the mother-child relationship. A wife depends on her husband for security and support; a husband depends on his wife for offspring, care and support; a child depends on his parents for security, support, and socialization; an elderly person depends on the young for care and support. Love comes of dependency.
I know, that is not too romantic, and it is certainly not Hollywood’s definition of love. This sounds nothing like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. Tinsel town and the poets have for age’s deliberately confused sexual attraction for love. Sexual attraction is animalistic, instinctual, and lasts for just a season; love is hard work and human, but it lasts for an eternity. While sexual attraction may feel good for that brief season when it drives men and women together, romance is not love. Love usually begins when the fires of romance start to smolder slowly, when the learning to live and depend on one another begins. Love is an elderly couple that has stayed together despite many rough patches in the marriage. Love happens when a mother cleans, feeds, and stays up all night with her crying infant, even on those occasions when she no longer feels like doing so. Love is a soldier in a battle who stays to aid his comrades, even when his natural instincts urge him to run away. Love happens as a result of having to care for, cooperate with, and depend on another person, despite your oftentimes not wanting to.
Egalitarians will not tolerate all this “co-dependency” because it forces one to subordinate his or her interests to the needs of the organic group. With so many different organic groups evolving their own conditions of subordination, inequality, especially for the weaker and more dependent members, is inevitable. Women, as natural dependents, have traditionally had to subordinate themselves to their male relatives. In all hierarchal systems, there are abuses, the family being no exception. At its core, egalitarianism teaches that all persons—regardless of sex, race, age, religion—are unequivocally equal. Not only should they have equality of opportunity, as in classical liberalism, but the primary purpose of society ought to be to create equality of condition. It should smash down all barriers to equality of outcome. Thus, the primary enemies of egalitarians are those antiquated organic groups, those systems of dependency that force the subordination of the weak to the strong.
That people are dependent on social support is a given, say the egalitarians. What is needed from their perspective is to remove the old organic social groups and replace them with one collective system that will level the playing field of life, so that all will have equality in every conceivable situation. There will be no natural dependents; all will be dependent equally on one system. There will be no organic roles or expectations foisted on one because of sex, race, age, religion. One amorphous system, one “Big Brother” will provide a safety-net of dependence, especially for such dependents as women. It will replace the old dependence on husband, brothers, and sons. This, they say, will ensure that no arbitrary abuses occur. “Big Brother” will compensate for one’s weakness; and to ensure against abuses, “Big Brother will curtail one’s natural strengths. Only then will everyone be truly equal.
For remainder of article, go to PDF link