Estimated Time: 4 minutes
Dear Men and Women,
I cannot help but feel that over the last few years there’s been a progressive escalation of hatred to the opposite gender. On the one hand, we have the “feminazis,” who see any masculine trait as an affront to their personal wellbeing. On the other hand, we have the “manosphere,” which often preaches that all women are blood sucking harpies who’ll stab you in the heart if you ever take your eye off them. Caught in the crossfire of this drama, we have the average Joe and Jane.
Neither Jane or Joe genuinely sees the opposite gender as an enemy to be fought. Yet the problem is that our own gendered extremists are lashing out at the other side, which creates reactionary extremists, which will create even more extremists of the opposite gender, and it becomes a negative feedback loop. Let’s stop this before it gets out of hand.
Women and men should have the same legal rights, with exceptions being made where biology is a factor. Nevertheless, we should not forget that priorities and activities are valued differently by a free market, and thus someone’s bottom line might be very different at the end of the day, even if they worked the same number of hours. Yet it must be said that applying the same yardstick to both men and women in social situations is not only moronic, but it’s patently unhelpful. We are a gender dimorphic species, meaning that our physical and psychological traits are different depending on sex. If we seek to value the behaviours of both sexes with the same metric, we’re just being delusional.
Just to put it into perspective, imagine there’s a great catastrophe. We have two separate societies, one in which almost all women die off, whilst another one where almost all men die off. The first society would have a very hard time recovering, as replenishment rates would be absurdly low. In the other society, it could potentially recover itself within a generation. In other words, in the algorithm of evolution, women are far more dear than men are, if there’s still some men around. Consequently, it makes perfect sense to use men as footsoldiers and risk takers to defend and enhance the gene pool. This is why we’re given testosterone (the neurochemical that produces everything from risk taking, violence, to male pattern baldness), as even if very few men were to succeed in their approach to life, humanity would still march on.
In other words, this theory would imply that men have a propensity for more risk taking, and they would also logically have a broader deviation from the mean in behavioural patterns. Women have a much more narrow range by which they can operate successfully, and thus they present less behavioural variance. Whilst still not proven conclusively, evidence seems to suggest as much. For one, in our youths, men are much more likely to die of violence, as cliché as it might seem, love and status may often be the reasons for such acts. We can also enjoy adrenaline for adrenaline’s sake. Hell, after getting threatened with a gun and fighting for my life against three thugs, I must confess I kinda found the experience quite fun. Besides that, suicide and the like are by far a male centric phenomena. This leads to a wide gender gap in terms of mortality. Should we really seek to try to rectify this? By eliminating said gap we’d eliminate the core of masculinity.
True, we far outnumber women in prisons by orders of magnitude, but we also far outnumber women in leadership roles, inventions, and essentially any creative endeavour you care to mention, despite an ever fanatical devotion to quotas. In any room filled with a lot of people, men are simultaneously likely going to be the dumbest and the smartest person to be found there, yet both genders have about the same average IQ. Now, please do not misconstrue what I have to say in saying that men are the superior gender. There can, and there have been many women out there who have broken these social/biological conventions, and society has been all the richer for it. Truth is, men need women as much as the other way around. Neither gender is superior, we live in a state of symbiosis where our strengths balance out the other’s weaknesses.
Men are gamblers, we’ll gamble anything that isn’t nailed down. We’re cynics, we know the price of everything but the value of nothing. Whilst I think that men are most likely the sex most responsible for creating the modern age with technological advancement, I also think it’s the sex more likely to bring about its ruin through reckless endangerment. Women excel at creating social cohesion, and advocating for beneficial change, I very much doubt that society would’ve come about without their interpersonal skills.
Men would’ve just remained in small bands, and we’d have continued bashing our heads in, ad infinitum. Women create order where there is chaos. They reign in the crazier ideas that men have, and design a world worth living for. Yet you won’t see their mark on history as evidently as men’s.
Historians like battles, conquests, inventions, because they’re quantifiable and easily verifiable. In other words, it likes overt and external shows of power. It’s much more difficult to historically assess the influence that a covert and internal source of power had. Subterfuge, socialising and covert action are woman’s strongsuit. It’s why women get frustrated at having to overtly spell things out for men, as things should be self evident from their underlying meaning.
As such, their influence is difficult to quantify. Yet there are plenty of instances to prove this. Livia Drusilla, for example, could arguably be called the mother of the Roman Empire, as she used her influence to make certain people Emperor, before the concept had been culturally accepted by the Romans. This pattern was followed so many times throughout Roman history that it became a bit of a running joke. Another great demonstration of the principle is Pompeia Plotina, who supposedly hired an actor once the Emperor Trajan had died, to pretend to have a last minute change of heart, so that he would name the young Hadrian as Emperor – one of the famous “five good emperors” who wasn’t in any way close to being named successor.
Imagine if you will what connections and power a well established woman has behind the scenes. Just to put it into context, “The Groom of the Stool” aka a king’s personal butt wiper, was someone of immense power and influence. In the middle ages, people fruitlessly lobbied, and went bankrupt, for several years to get the chance to wipe the king’s butt. Reason being that at least once a day, for a while, the aristocrat would have a private audience with the king. Now imagine a courtesan’s influence, who not only has a private audience, but she has the person of power’s sole attention for hours on end.
A woman’s influence in the right place can drown out a whole society’s voice for the better. Pericles, the Athenian leader who oversaw and created the Golden Age of Greece, fell madly in love with Aspasia, a brothel keeper and a prostitute. This was sacrilege, and it came to the point that even his own son slandered Pericles publicly. Having said this, courtesans in that day and age were versed in music, the arts, philosophy, etc. They were not your random street walker, they were cultured, charming and intelligent. Is it any wonder that one of the zeniths of humanity happened with the mutual work of a powerful man, and a visionary woman?
I dread we’re coming to an age where we’re allowing hatred and prejudice to overtake us. Men and women balance each other out, it’s not only necessary, but it is beautiful to allow it to happen. If we try to masculinise women and make men more effeminate, this is a recipe for disaster and unhappiness. There are far more worthwhile crusades out there than fighting against the very core that makes us human. I suggest we heed those warnings before it’s too late…
Have you ever had problems with the opposite gender, what happened?
If you agree with the philsophy behind the articles, consider following us via email, or on facebook to continue reading new ones like it