The Earth Party

Position on:

Feminism and Gender Relations


1.  The Meaning of Equality

2.  The Reality of the Power Balance

3.  The Unspoken Column

4.  The War Between the Sexes

5.  Where Trumpism Comes From

6.  How Patriarchy Began

7.  The Key to the Battle

8.  Peace Between the Sexes

1.  The Meaning of Equality

A.  We believe in equality.  We believe that both sexes are equal in worth, and are deserving of equal respect, dignity, and rights.

B.  Equal, however, does not mean identical.  Females and males are different in characteristics.  Each sex has strengths where the other has weaknesses, and weaknesses where the other has strengths. 

Equal in worth; distinct in traits.

C.  And this is not by accident, because the sexes are more than just sexes.  They are representations of the two metaphysical halves of Reality.

Every magnet has two poles, and every particle has an anti-particle.  The Universe is designed as a fractal pattern, with the macro resembling the micro.  Electromagnetism consists of yang (+) and yin (-), and so does social relationship.  The total amount of each type is equal, if you zoom out to a large enough scale.  It's a basic law of reality that neither pole in any polarity can dominate the other - not for long, anyway.

This is a basic property of physics:  the law of polarity. And the sexes - male and female - represent the metaphysical polarities of masculine and feminine. 

This does not mean that all men must be masculine or all women must be feminine.  There is no requirement for any person to have any particular energy.  Feminine men and masculine women are fine.  If that's how Nature made you, there's no problem there.  Neutrons exist, and are part of physics.  (For more details on this topic, visit our page on LGBT Issues and Philosophies).

But speaking in terms of statistics, and of the overall aggregate properties of the respective collective consciousness of both sexes, each sex does naturally gravitate towards embodying one of the polarities:  masculinity for men, and femininity for women.

D.  The two polarities are the primordial co-creators of Reality.  As such, our natural condition is friendship, partnership, and cooperation. We are supposed to be working together - playing together- dancing together - to co-create this world.

When we're in loving cooperation together, the world is stable, and we can face any challenge, solve any problem, and fix any issue, hand in hand.

E.  But when we quarrel, everything goes out of whack, and society deteriorates very quickly. 

The current situation of humanity largely results from a long-running fight between masculine and feminine.  All other issues stem from this.  Racism, imperialism, colonialism, consumerism, carnism, religious fanaticism, terrorism, mass-shootings, environmental destruction, economic inequality, poverty... all of it can be traced to origins in the disharmony between men and women, and between the forces of masculine and feminine.  This will be explained in further detail below.

F.  Over the years, each sex (or each polarity, if that's the way you prefer to look at it) has developed weapons to fight the other, and regain the upper hand.

Patriarchy is a weapon by the male/masculine to gain power over the female/feminine. 

Feminism is a weapon by the female to gain power over the male.

Trumpism is the vanguard of neomasculinity, which itself is a major counterattack by the masculine against its long bombardment by feminism.  If you keep reading, we'll explain  where trumpism comes from, what's fueling it, and how to heal the wound.

G.  Neither gender (or polarity) is the "good guy" or the "bad guy."  It's not about one oppressing the other - the oppression is not unilateral.

It's simply a war.  An ancient war, between two metaphysical forces that are intrinsically equal, and supposed to be friends.

H.  The way to solve the problem of war is not to make one side win and dominate the other - it's simply to stop the fighting.  To lay down the weapons on both sides, and not use those weapons anymore.

Feminism is a weapon.  So is patriarchy.  When there is Peace Between the Sexes, neither weapon will be in use.  That means feminism will have to be let go of (along with patriarchy) in order to have lasting peace.


2.  The Reality of the Power Balance

"But men are oppressing women!  Men started this war, it's men's fault, and the only way to fix it is to liberate women from men!"

Feminist philosophy is founded on the premise that men have had control over women for centuries, or, in more metaphysical terms, that the male/masculine polarity has been dominant over the female/feminine polarity.  Either way, it states that the former has been controlling all aspects of society, while the latter just sat there, mostly passive and helpless.


But we don't accept this premise, because it fails to acknowledge the power that women (and the feminine polarity) have.  Men have had control economically and politically, in the "official" realm, but women have always wielded power in the realm of emotion and sexuality.  These realms may be more subtle, and less immediately visible to the naked eye than the types of power that men wield, but they are not less powerful.  Men may be the visible actors, but women have enormous influence through subtler channels that can be overlooked if you're only looking at the surface of things.

The reason why it doesn't seem like that's true is because the power of women and the feminine is harder to see.  It's more subtle, and less immediately visible to the naked eye.  But it's no less potent. 

Men's power is easy to see because it's out in the open.  Men have controlled the official power structures.  They hold the political offices and run the companies, and their names are on the title deeds.  So at first glance, yes, it seems like they're in control. 

But women have enormous power. 

The world of feeling and emotion (particularly sexuality) is far more powerful than feminism gives it credit for.  In fact, some (not all, but some) schools of feminism consider it useless and inconsequential - which is why they believe that their empowerment is to be achieved by becoming more like men - by making women into men.  They equate power with masculinity.  To them, masculinity and power are the same thing, and that's why they want women to become masculinized.  In a feat of supreme irony, some major schools of feminism denigrate femininity.

But femininity is powerful.  It's just as powerful as masculinity - just in a different way.  It's the ruler of the realm of emotion and sexuality, and this realm is the driver of everything that happens in the human world - second only to food and survival. 

All the wars that are being fought, all the money that's being made, all the corporations that are plundering - it can all be traced back to "someone needs something."  And if that something isn't food, then it's something emotional.  A good general umbrella term to describe these types of needs would be Love.

And women, being naturally more attuned to the subtleties of this realm, are at an intrinsic advantage over men.  Women are better at navigating it, and women hold the keys to it. 

The prize for which men work so hard, for which men (allegedly) created the pay gap to take more money, for which men wage wars and ravage the biosphere - women are the ones holding from the very start.  Whatever advantages men have acquired, they did so to impress and win the affections of women.  Women begin the game already holding the very reason for which men play the game in the first place. 

That's a position of enormous privilege, and it's not an act of misogyny to acknowledge this.

That's how powerful women are. 

Feminist philosophy portrays women as helpless objects being acted upon, but never as subjects doing the acting - like billiard balls getting bounced around a pool table.  This is not a healthy way to view women.  Women have been the co-creators of human events since the dawn of humanity.  Whenever a man has acted, his choices were influenced by the women around him, and by the need to impress those women to obtain love from them.  Soldiers, generals, CEO's, presidents, kings, and emperors all acted as part of a socio-emotional ecosystem in which women were not only participants, but major powers in the shaping of the dynamic.  Women shaped the landscape and set the rules of the game in which the men faced the choices they were faced with. 

This is not to absolve men of all responsibility, or to blame everything on women.  (That's the kind of thing feminism does).  Feminism blames the entire problem on men, and patriarchy blames the entire problem on women.  Both systems are wrong.

The Earth Party transcends both of those limited worldviews.  We view both genders as equally responsible.  We view history is a co-creation of both sexes, with both acting in unconsciousness, and both contributing to the mess we're in.

This is a healthier narrative, because it places us - men and women - both in the same boat, giving us a sense of solidarity with each other.  With solidarity, there's no blame game.  And the blame game has got to stop, because we have a lot of serious problems to fix on this planet, and we need to cooperate, not fight one another.  Women and men are the natural partners and allies of one another, and we shouldn't be fighting one another.  We should be teaming up to fight our common enemy, which is ignorance, which knows no race or gender.

"But women have actually been oppressed!  How could men have gotten away with so much abuse, for all this time, if women have just as much power as them?  Obviously, women have NOT had as much power!"

Women have indeed been oppressed and dis-empowered, but so have men. 


Feminism is founded NOT on the premise merely that women have been oppressed, but that they've been oppressed MORE.

In order for feminism to make sense, women's oppression must have been greater than men's oppression.  If women were indeed oppressed (which they were), but their oppression is not greater than that of men, then the rationale for feminism collapses.

We fully acknowledge the oppression that women have faced, and continue to face.  We do not deny it at all.  There is an entire list - a very long list - of ways in which women are oppressed and disadvantaged, relative to men.

There is a long list of ways in which human beings have suffered, and continue to suffer, from corrupt and oppressive social systems.  But the list has two columns - not just one.  There is a column for women - for ways in which women have been disadvantaged - but there is also a corresponding column for men, of ways in which men have also been oppressed and disadvantaged, relative to women.  And it's substantial.

pic of two columns

3.  The Men's Oppression Column

In university gender studies courses, students will be shown the column for women (the ways in which women have been disadvantaged), but they will not be shown the corresponding column for men.  In fact, the latter column's very existence will be denied.  In fact, the mere mention of such a column is treated as a serious transgression - an act of bigotry against women.  It is literally not permitted to be spoken of, and anyone who speaks of it will be punished - academically, socially, and economically.

When a person suggests the existence of the Men's Disadvantage Column, the proper repercussions are, according to standard feminist protocol:

---To be cast out of their social group by their peers, and isolated from all social contact with the rest of humanity

---To be denied access to all public platforms of expression (de-platforming)

---To be shouted down if they attempt to speak

---To be labelled with pejoratives such as "sexist", "misogynist", "bigot", "fascist", and other epithets, up to and including "Nazi"

---To be dehumanized by the press

---To be fired from their current job and blacklisted from all future employment

---To be legally prosecuted if at all possible

---To be walked up to on the sidewalk and punched in the face

Due to this intimidation, it's very easy for a student to make it through 4 (or more) years of university without ever encountering the idea of the Men's Disadvantage Column. 

Not being familiar with what's in the second column, and only acknowledging the first, how can someone make an informed judgment about which column is weightier, and more substantive?  How can they judge if they've never even compared?  They can't.

This is why the basic premise of feminism - that "men have more power than women" - is such an automatic assumption in today's society.  It's treated as a basic property of the universe - like the fact that gravity pulls things down, or that the Sun rises in the east. 

But assumptions can be false, no matter how widely accepted they are.

"What's in the column?"

"So how did all these false assumptions develop in the first place?  Why would one sex or gender feel it's being oppressed by the other, if it's not actually?  How did these beliefs become prominent?"

It's simple:  it's been a war.  Each side tries to hurt the other.  That's what people do in a war. 

And just like in war, each side levies propaganda against the other, to garner sympathy for itself, and gain allies in its fight against the other. 

4.  The War Between the Sexes

The Gender War is a primary example of the "divide and conquer" strategy that keeps the unhealthy, dangerous status-quo intact.  Instead of focusing on evolving to a better world, we're busy fighting each other.

It's similar to how racism is used.  Racism is a way to prevent poor, downtrodden people from rising up and changing the social structures that oppress them, by distracting them.  Racism tells poor people that their problems are coming from another race - one which is just as poor as (or poorer than) they are.  Rich white people used this tactic to control poor white people throughout the 20th century, by convincing them to blame all their problems on black people.

The Gender War is the same thing.  Our status-quo system is teaching women to blame their oppression on men, and to view their struggle as a struggle against men.  And thus, instead of teaming up with men, their natural partners, to fight against corrupt power structures, women are doing the precise opposite: teaming up with those corrupt power structures to fight against men.


This keeps men distracted (because they're defending themselves from women, or self-shaming to win approval from women), and women distracted (because they're focused on fighting men and not the corrupt power structures, which they're instead placing an ever-increasing amount of faith into). 

Men and women are supposed to be natural partners and allies in the protection of our planet, but instead, we've been turned into adversaries.  And while we squabble with each other, the corrupt system is burning our biosphere to the ground, committing unspeakable horrors against humans and animals, and building a totalitarian tyranny to enslave us all. 

The Earth Party stands against identity-politics.  We believe that it's time for everyone to work together to solve the dire problems that face us as a species, and as a planet. 

In order to heal our world, we need to cooperate.  To do that, we must let go of artificial divisions.

"Who is doing the dividing and conquering?  Who is it that wants men and women to fight one another?  Who is this big oppressor who's oppressing both sexes?"

That would be the technocratic cabal, a movement seeking to replace biological Life with computers and artificial intelligence.  In order to accomplish that, they need to keep humanity brainwashed by their ideology of technocracy - and for that, they need to sabotage healthy sexuality.


Sexuality is the main raw source of personal power and creativity.  Healthy sexual relationships are one of the biggest threats to technocracy's control apparatus.  Sexual intercourse is the purest expression of the Spirit of Biological Life, and since biology is what technocracy aims to eliminate and replace, technocracy needs to attack and undermine biology's spirit, in order to gain a foothold in the human psyche.  

Yes, this can sound far-fetched if it's your first time hearing it, but it makes sense if you think about it logically, and with an open mind.  To learn more about this subject, visit our page on Conspiracy Theories and the Cabal. 

"So feminism is a weapon that needs to be discarded completely?  What about patriarchy?  Should we just let patriarchy run rampant?"

No, it's not that simple.  Both sides need to lay down their weapons at the same time.  You're right:  if feminists give up feminism, but patriarchy continues, then the dynamic will snap towards the opposite, male-dominated extreme.  That's why wars are ended with peace treaties, wherein both sides pledge to disarm together, simultaneously.


5.  Where Trumpism Comes From

"I'm a feminist, and I'm willing to lay down my weapons for peace, if it's a true, lasting peace, and if patriarchs lay down theirs.  But will they?  They seem to be the ones with all the power now.  Donald Trump is president, and patriarchy is on the rise.  Chauvinists are acting bolder than ever before, and certainly don't seem to be interested in lovey-dovey peace and understanding right now.  What do we do about that?"

First, understand that Trumpism and the Alt-Right are the political manifestations of neomasculinity, the resurgence of masculinity and male empowerment in contemporary mass-consciousness.  Neomasculinity arose from the manosphere - the meta-community of men disaffected by feminism, where members of various disparate groups and movements have converged, online, to develop a meta-narrative about their grievances, and join forces to counteract feminism (or, in many sad cases, women in general), which they perceive to be responsible.  The manosphere was the intellectual incubator of the nascient Alt-Right, and in 2015/2016 provided the primary space for working out the argumentation to justify the candidacy of Donald Trump for president.

The Trump presidency (and its corresponding phenomena overseas) came about by other factors as well, such as economic deterioration, failure of existing (mostly left-leaning) elites to address the problems of regular people, a backlash against manipulative globalism, the real results of poorly-planned muticulturalism, exasperation at stifling political correctness, Left-wing confrontational activism, and staggering corruption in neoliberal political parties (including the U.S. Democratic Party).  To read more about this topic in detail, you can visit our page on Donald Trump and Trumpism.

But what's important on this page is the cultural motivation behind his election.  This isn't about policies - it's about raw feeling, emotion, and the metaphysical forces of masculine and feminine - and the condition of their relationship. 

When all political and economic factors are boiled off, what remains is the anger and desperation of the masculine principle, reeling after decades of suppression and disempowerment (real or perceived) by the feminine through feminism.

Sure, the alt-right cares about a lot of things, including immigration, race, religion, multiculturalism, taxes, and a host of other issues. But those are all secondary.  At its core, the alt-right is driven by the masculine collective consciousness.  Only something this central to human consciousness would have given the movement enough power to elect a president and change the course of human society. 

Trump is the champion of the Alt-Right...

the Alt-Right is the political manifestation of neomasculinity...

and neomasculinity is the most contemporary major "salvo" by patriarchy in the gender war. 

To convince the patriarchy to seek peace, we're going to need to heal the male/masculine spirit.  To do that, we must understand the roots of patriarchy. 

What caused patriarchy in the first place?  Have you ever thought about that? 

What was it that made men reject the matriarchal paradise of our distant past?  Why did men build a new and untested system of patriarchy, all those centuries ago?



6.  How Patriarchy Began 

A long, long time ago, we all lived in grass huts, on the savannah or in the forest, living in harmony and balance with Nature.  Society was egalitarian, and women were equal in power to men.  Some would even say women were the dominant sex, through their superior navigation of the emotional realm and control of the prospects for sexual intercourse.


At the time, there was no patriarchal church or organized religion, no "old boys club", no concept of individual land ownership, no title-deeds, no gender wage-gap (as there was probably no money, at least as we know it), no chauvinist written philosophy (as there was no writing), and none of the institutional pillars of patriarchy existed yet.  Many or most of the means by which men would later exert power had not yet been invented. 

Suffice it to say, men had very little leverage over women, and little ability to pressure women into doing what they wanted.  So women were free to choose sexual partners based purely on personal preference, without worrying about political, religious, or economic needs.  Perhaps not entirely without those worries - but they were far less restricting.  Women's sexual selection was mostly free of external, artificial pressures.  So, to put it bluntly, women could sleep with whoever they wanted.

Sounds like a paradise for everyone, doesn't it?  Who wouldn't enjoy sexual liberation?

The problem with this is that in such scenarios, a lot of women end up selecting the same, small minority of men.  A few men get to mate with an extremely disproportionate section of the women, while a large contingent (often the vast majority) of men are not selected at all, and have to live without sex. 

This is the phenomenon of alpha and beta males, and it's seen everywhere in the animal kingdom.  Virtually all animal species mate this way, with some families - like the felines, canines, and primates - taking it to an extreme of having only one sexually active male per pack at any given time.  Our closest cousins, the chimpanzees, are notorious for this.  Even the seemingly libertine bonobos, despite being free with non-procreative forms of sex activity (oral and manual stimulation), are nevertheless far more selective with procreative (penile-vaginal) sex, about which they follow the alpha-beta pattern just like all the other primates. 

And we can see the same pattern in homo-sapiens, showing up in the sexually liberated environment of the modern college campus.  In the one setting in which all sexual activity is allowed, encouraged, and facilitated with free contraception, and humans are left to their own devices in choosing sexual activities and partners without any external pressure or restriction, the same phenomenon faithfully shows up.  The vast majority of female sexual experimentation on college campuses happens with a tiny fraction of guys - usually the most physically attractive - while the majority of guys have very little to no sex, despite very much wanting to.  This may not be politically correct, but it's reality, and guys will confirm it if they don't fear social repercussions of political incorrectness.  If you don't know this, you haven't been listening to them.

So quite a few people were unhappy with prehistoric matriarchal paradise.  It produced a lot of involuntary celibacy.


And involuntary celibacy is a big deal.  Most men are obviously not incel, but the specter of it looms over the psyche of almost every man, whether he's conscious of it or not.

Almost all men are one of the following:

1.  An incel (involuntary celibate)

2.  A former incel who's afraid of going back to incel again

3.  Someone who has never been incel, but knows they could become incel if they let their guard down, and doesn't want to take any chances of that happening

There are a tiny number of men who don't fall into any of these three categories, because they have always had easy access to sex, and have supreme confidence that they'll never lose it.  But there are very few such men.  The vast majority of men are aware that they could become incel, and fear it, and are willing to do just about anything to avoid it.

Even if they don't admit it, the fear of possibly becoming incel is subconsciously at the core of all of the weird, bad, and seemingly inexplicable things that men do.

So a long time ago, the incels got together, had a revolution, overthrowing the existing matriarchal order through force and violence, and then instituted a system of enforced monogamy.  From that point onward, a person, male or female, was only permitted to have one partner.  The attractive men who had previously monopolized multiple women could now only have one - which forced all the others to start considering men whom they previously had overlooked.

It can be said that patriarchy was the original socialism!

Involuntary celibacy was the impetus that drove men to create patriarchy, and the original patriarchal revolution in each culture was waged by incels. 

Men invented patriarchy to acquire leverage over women, to attain (what they thought at the time would be) an even playing field.   Of course, it backfired, and patriarchy created more problems, some of which, pursued to their conclusion, are now threatening the very continuity of Life on Earth.


So patriarchy was clearly a bad idea, and should be discarded post-haste.  But at the same time, we will also need to address the emotional and sexual weakness in men, because if we don't, we just go back to square one - matriarchy - in which men and women have equal power economically but women are dominant emotionally and sexually - which was the environment which originally led to patriarchy in the first place.  If we go back to that, then patriarchy will simply re-arise all over again.  That's what started to happen in these past 5 years or so. 


Involuntary celibacy is a major destabilizer of societies.  It's the root cause of patriarchy. No one who's interested in social progress and peace can overlook the central role that this condition plays in the human predicament.

To recap:

Involuntary celibacy --> Patriarchy --> Manosphere --> Alt-Right --> Trump

That's the chain of causation.  If you want to fix all this, you're going to have to address the problem of widespread involuntary celibacy.

7.  Healing Incels:

The Key to Ending the War



"As a woman, is it my duty to please a man?"
​Yes, as Woman, it is your duty to serve and fulfill Man.
​And it is Man's duty to serve and fulfill YOU.

See?  Equal.  Equality.  It's a mutual partnership.

Man and woman are both poles in an eternal dance that's fundamental to the makeup of the universe.  Each pole serves  as the complimentary oppposite that fulfills and balances the other.  If you're refusing to play your part, and deliberately causing unfulfillment in the other, then you are partially responsible for the development of imbalance and insanity in, and subsequent insanity-driven misbehavior of, that pole.  This goes for both woman and man.  Both are partially responsible for the other, because both are intertwined at a deep and elemental level of reality. They cannot be separated, and neither can be causally isolated from the other.  The condition and behavior  of each is partly defined and driven by the other.


For instance:

If you look at racism, imperialism, colonialism, and oppression of indigenous peoples, it's a manifestation of the disharmony between the genders.  Colonial powers with advanced technological capabilities and machines (the masculine) feel lonely and unloved in their overcrowded, dirty cities on cold, dreary continents, and so they reach out and non-consensually impregnate other continents, oppressing the native people, who live a less mechanized lifestyle in closer communion with nature (the feminine).

If you look at environmental destruction, you can again see corporations, run (and certainly designed) mostly by men and operating on a masculinity so mechanized and out-of-touch with nature as to be called hyper-masculine, digging, drilling, cutting, sawing, slicing, burning, dumping, poisoning, and blowing up the natural world as a means to acquire wealth, for the purpose of purchasing big houses and loud cars and other status symbols intended to raise their status in the social hierarchy in the eyes of females, to increase their chances of attracting those females and obtaining sex and love from them, not knowing how else to get it.

The over-consumption of meat partly stems from the compulsion of men to appear masculine.  Mass-shootings are committed mostly by lonely, angry men.  Religious fanaticism is centered around a hyper-masculinized male god who sits on a throne all alone, with no goddess to keep him company.

And one of the main driving forces behind the development of AI (artificial intelligence), which tech-leaders are nearly unanimous in citing as the greatest danger to humanity's future, is the desperate desire of sexually frustrated and lonely men to find solace and relief through sex-androids. 

All issues ultimately arise from the disharmony between the sexes, and so it's of central importance to heal this wound, now.

For a synopsis of our position on feminism and gender, visit our page on Feminism and the Gender War.

The Earth Party

Societal Peacemaking Series

7. The Grand Treaty

For Peace Between Left and Right

And Between the Sexes

This treaty is still under construction.  When completed, it will be posted on a petition website (e.g. and perhaps others), for everyone to log on and sign, expressing their support for the treaty and the peacemaking process.

On Awakening

Righties agree to learn more and gain awareness, to seek out knowledge of what's happening, especially on topics including human rights, animal rights, and ecology, and to listen to Lefties who are trying to impart such knowledge.

Lefties agree to be less hostile and confrontational in their tactics of activism.

Lefties agree to try as best as possible to explain important knowledge to Righties in a calm, rational, respectful, and straightforward manner, and to avoid acting condescending towards them for not already knowing it.

Righties agree to stop shutting their ears, and start listening to what Lefties are trying to explain.

On Past Experiences

Lefties agree to be more welcoming to Righties, to stop ostracizing and excluding them for not being cool, hip, woke, or chill enough, and to actively seek ways to include them and help them nourish their social lives and "become cool."

Righties agree to try as best as possible to transcend their anger and jealousy toward Lefties for past ostracism and exclusion, and to stop letting it obstruct the process of cooperating to find solutions to our world's challenges.

On Gender

Righties admit that gender-based behavioral expectations are often too rigid, and that this does in fact constitute a form of oppression, as it stifles the Right to Freedom of Expression.

Lefties admit that there is more than one way to interpret the nature of gender expression and sexuality, and that a mere philosophical disagreement does not constitute oppression.

On the Duties of the Sexes

Woman agrees to recognize that the sexes are interdependent upon one-another at a fundamental, metaphysical level, and that each has responsibilities toward the other.

Man agrees to recognize that the responsibility of Woman towards Man does not imply a responsibility of any specific woman towards any specific man.

Woman agrees to accept the responsibility of nourishing Man's spirit and nurturing his emotional and sexual needs.

Man agrees to stop trying to obtain Woman's nourishment by force, and to dismantle the oppressive social structures that were devised for that.

Man agrees to actively seek to recognize the oppressive social structures that were devised for enabling his domination over Woman, to learn how those structures work, and to contribute toward dismantling those structures. 

Woman agrees to recognize that Man suffers also, that his grievances are often legitimate and don't all stem from patriarchy, and to listen to him with an open and compassionate mind. 

Righties agree to learn more and gain awareness, to seek out knowledge of what's happening, especially on topics including human rights, animal rights, and ecology, and to listen to Lefties who are trying to impart such knowledge.

Lefties agree to try as best as possible to explain important knowledge to Righties in a calm, rational, respectful, and straightforward manner, and to avoid acting condescending towards them for not already knowing it.

I, the undersigned, hereby declare my endorsement of, support for, and intention to actively create, peace between the sexes.

The war has gone on long enough, and I choose to be a maker of peace by working with those I view as the "other " side, by hearing their stories, taking them seriously, and doing my best to empathize with their experience.  

I hereby invite dialogue, with anyone willing to engage me in a good-faith effort to understand one-another to co-create peace.

If I am a man, I invite dialogue with Woman.

If I am a woman, I invite dialogue with Man.

If I don't identify with my biological sex, and have internalized the conflict from the point of view of the other sex, then I will participate in the dialogue as a representative of whichever sex I feel best matches my identity and experience.

If I don't identify with either sex, I will still do what I can to facilitate dialogue and peace between the sexes.

Whoever I am, I promise to listen, with an open mind, and to treat the other respectfully.

And I affirm the following foundational premises in all discussion:

1.  Someone's sex/gender has no effect on the value of their life, the dignity they deserve, or their right to be heard.

2.  An individual's needs and concerns are not less important because of the individual's sex/gender.

3.  I do not have a full, direct experience of being the other sex, and I don't really know what it's like to be them - not completely.  Therefore, I offer them the benefit of the doubt that, when they insist that a challenge they face is more significant than I think it is, it probably is.  

4.  Although a full understanding may be elusive, I will try to understand as best I can, by listening, and by offering space for the other to speak, to explain what I have yet to understand.  

5.  I cannot prescribe unless I understand. I cannot understand unless I listen.  And I cannot listen unless I give the other space to speak and explain.  I commit to listening carefully to another's point before responding with my own.

The sexes were never supposed to be enemies.  We are co-creators of our shared Reality, partners in the dance of Creation.

Many years of fighting have left our world scarred and divided, but if we begin communicating with each other, we can get it back on the right path.  We can begin a new era of love and peace.  

I pledge my support for peace between the sexes, and I petition everyone who shares this planet to do the same.  




Join group of other sex activism.  For instance, if you identify with men's rights activism or red pill philosophy, join a feminist forum.  And if you identify as a feminist, join a men's rights or red pill forum.

Join, and then read and listen to what people have to say.

Men admit that toxic masculinity exists, and that a portion of ones own masculinity (or ones beliefs about masculinity) might be toxic.  Agree to fix those behaviors when made aware of them.

Agree to be open to feedback from others, and listen to others (especially women) when they try to point out those behaviors and explain why they feel the behaviors are toxic.
Agree to take initiative in ones own learning process by engaging in somewhat regular acts of self reflection and self examination to spot those aspects of toxicity on ones own.

Women admit that toxic masculinity arises from fear, and that men who suffer from it need compassion, not more pain.
Admit that dehumanizing and otherizing them does nothing to help or fix the situation.

Admit that the two sexes are not causally isolated from one another, but interrelated, like all aspects of nature, and that, therefore, women might have played some part in cocreating the situation, and that a portion of one's own behavior may be continuing to contribute to it.
Agree to pay more attention in one's interactions, to keep watch for any action that might be doing so.

Agree to listen to their stories, to learn about the experience they've been going through.

1.  Sexuality is a central, fundamental aspect of being human.

2.  If someone is unable to participate in one of Life's core aspects, then it can reasonably be expected that they'd be suffering, deeply.

3.  If someone is suffering, and they cry out for help, a civilized society is one that takes them seriously, stands in solidarity with them, and does what it can to help them.

How you can help them:

1.  Stop hurting them.  No more namecalling, bullying, attacking.

2.  Allow them to communicate.    If they want to talk, talk to them.


The Earth Party

Societal Peacemaking Series

5. Peace Between the Sexes

Part 3: History

We've all heard the phrase, "the war between the sexes."  And most of us can sense that it's not a fictional concept.  We're living in it.

But have you ever thought about how the war started?  How, when, by whom, and for what reason?

Understanding the past can help us understand the present.  If we know how the war began, we might just figure out how to end it.

While it's impossible for anyone to be certain what happened long before any of us were born, we can at least conjecture.  And the Earth Party has provided a theory, produced below, with a high degree of internal consistency, that matches well with known science in the fields of biology, anthropology, and psychology.


When you read this theory, please try to have an open mind.  Everyone has been affected by the war, everyone has pain surrounding it, and everyone has trigger-points that cause emotional reactivity.  Chances are, something here will make you feel a bit angry or uncomfortable - whether you're male or female, on the Left or the Right. 

We ask that you do your best to be aware of this, and try to rise above it, at least for a few minutes.

So now, let's start with some facts.

Fact #1:  A woman can only have 1 child per every 11 months or so.  It takes 9 months for gestation, then another 1-2 months to begin ovulating again.  This is not any kind of judgment - it's just a scientific fact.

For simplicity's sake, let's round up the number to 1 year.  A woman can have 1 child per year.  Technically, she can have 2 or 3 (in the case of twins or triplets), but, generally speaking, it's 1 per year.  

Fact #2:  A man, on the other hand, is capable of fathering an unlimited number of children a year.  Theoretically, the number is limitless.  The only limitation is the number of available partners.  Again, this is a simple fact of biology.

Given this basic difference, men's and women's mating drives are going to be different, right from the get-go.  Our instinctual programs will drive us to approach mating from different angles.

The female mating program is designed for a "one shot" situation.  She only gets one chance (per year), and so, any time she mates with a new partner, she's making a huge investment, and taking a huge risk.  The female biology recognizes this, and will drive her to be very selective, and to seek out the best possible partner - the "cream of the crop", as they say - the fittest male individual she can find. 

On the other hand, a male's chances of passing down his genes will be maximized by mating with as many partners as possible.  Each mating is a low-investment engagement.  He loses practically nothing from each encounter, and has everything to gain.

So, to recap:  The male sex drive urges its host to have as many mates as he can, while the female mating drive urges the greatest possible caution and selectivity.

We're still in the realm of science, here.  These ideas are some of the basic building blocks of the Theory of Natural Selection.  None of this (so far) should be controversial. 





Moving on...

Females are looking for "the best", and "the best" has objective measures.  It can be measured by physical health, ability to fight off predators, and ability to obtain food and provide for a family.  

"No, I'm a woman, and I don't select a man based on his ability to hunt a saber-tooth tiger.  I select for other character traits, like kindness, shared interests, and ability to hold a conversation and make me laugh, and so many other things."

We today make our choices of mates based on other factors, such as personality and how well we "match" - but this is a relatively new phenomenon, as far as biological evolution is concerned.  The vast majority of our time evolving was spent in conditions where we (usually) didn't have the luxury of this kind of emotion-based selection - we had to select for survival, in order to succeed in passing down our genes.  These are the conditions in which our biology evolved, and thus, this is the way our biological mating program drives us.

This is not to say that pure Darwinian genetic selfishness - i.e. the "selfish gene" - is the "only" factor in our mating choices - it's clearly not.  People choose mates nowadays for many other reasons, now that we have the luxury of doing so, thanks to our technological prosperity, and its ability to put survival-anxiety far out of our minds.  But in more primitive times, we did not always have such a luxury, and our biology acted accordingly, by prioritizing fitness and survival-potential.  We still carry that biology, today.





Anyway, prehistoric survival-fitness is an objectively measurable quality.  It's not based on the personal preferences and tastes of the individual doing the selecting.  The environment is the crucible that tests it.


And in any group of people, there is always one individual (or a small clique, in larger populations) who is/are the most fit (as in "survival of the fittest") - i.e. the most skillful and successful.  And this small number of individuals would be everyone's top choice to mate with.


But this fact affects males and females differently.


If the "best female" already has a male partner, there is very little reason for other males to seek to mate with her.  After all, she might already be fertilized - and if so, there's nothing to gain from mating with her.  So the male will seek out a different female - the "fittest" one he can find who is willing to mate with him, and who doesn't already have a partner, (because, from a biological perspective, there's no point in mating with a female whose egg is already fertilized by someone else).


But the "best male", on the other hand, is capable of mating with every female in the tribe, and fathering the entire next generation.  Female sex drives know this, and so it doesn't matter if that male already has other partners.  He could have 1 other female partner, or 5, or 10, or 100 - but no matter how many he has, he can still father more children, and so the rest of the females will still have something to gain from using his DNA to sire their offspring.  Every female's sex drive is going to be stimulated, to one degree or another, to seek him.  The SAME him. 

And that's where the phenomenon of the "alpha male" comes from.  It exists in the animal kingdom.  It's not something that was invented by MRA's, or PUA's, or the intellectual dark web, or the Alt-Right.  It's a basic phenomenon in biology.  Almost every species of animal has it.  Some, more than others.  The closest relatives of humans, the chimpanzees, have it.  Almost all primates have it.  Almost all mammals and birds have it.  

We're still talking about plain old science.  This shouldn't be offensive.  Painful, perhaps, for those of us, male or female, who feel that these biological forces haven't been kind to us - but not offensive, right?

(If this information brings up pain and resentment from your past, don't worry - the next page will offer solutions to improve the dynamic between the sexes, and help everyone have a more fulfilling experience of intimacy and sexuality.)




Moving on...

If you rewind the clock back to the era before patriarchy, it was a time in which, by definition, men did not have the ability to control women's sexual selections, and women were free to mate with any partner they felt attracted to.  Even sexual shame and guilt were not present yet, for the idea of linking sexuality to those discomforting emotions was an invention of patriarchy.

No shame, no guilt, no pressure, no control.  That's the kind of sex we all long for, isn't it?  

It must have been a very happy time, at least in the sexual arena.

Except that it wasn't.  Not for men.  Not for most men.

While the few lucky men who were "alpha" got to enjoy the fruits of all of this freedom, the vast majority of men were left out.  The party was raging, but they weren't invited.

If a male lion, wolf, monkey, bird, horse, or any other kind of male animal, finds himself on the losing end of this dynamic, he will simply slink away, curl up somewhere, and process his feelings in whatever way he processes them.  But humans have verbal language, and with it, the ability to tell stories... to commiserate... and to plan.  Male humans must have talked to each other about what they were going through.  At some point, someone must have decided that he'd "had enough." 

Somewhere, in some distant time, a tribe must have found itself facing history's very first "coup d'etat."  The women and alpha-males of that tribe must have woken up one day to find all of the beta males (all males who aren't alpha-males) holding their hunting spears, pointed toward them, with angry, steely expressions on their faces.  They then must have heard an extremely strange demand:  "From now on, every male is allowed to mate with only ONE female.  If you're an alpha-male, and there are 5 women willing to mate with you, you've got to say no to 4 of them, so that 4 partner-less males can have a chance." 

And thus arose the world's first enforced monogamy.  




But it probably didn't last very long.  The following night, everyone talked.  Tears were shed, hugs were exchanged, the aggression was assuaged, the men apologized, and everything went back to normal.




But peace wouldn't have lasted - not forever.  Because the initial problem was still there.  From time to time, the issue would flare up again - only to be talked back down.


For a while, it might have fluctuated back and forth, with an ever-increasing degree of tension in the tribe over the topic.

Eventually, someone would have realized that the "coup" would never be sustainable without a more fundamental change.  In order to make the beta-males hold their ground, and maintain the new regime (rather than hugging and making up each time), a new type of thinking would be required.  The beta-males' very minds would have to be restructured to make them harder, more rigid, less empathic, and more willing to overrule the promptings of their hearts.

To make beta-males willing to sustain a violent stance indefinitely, their thinking would have to be deeply warped.  They would have to be trained to think toxically.  

And thus arose the world's first toxic masculinity.

And there would need to be some kind of permanent social structure in place to keep all of this consistent.  Even one night of group catharsis could undue all of the toxic programming.  The beta-males would need to set up an institution that transcends any one individual, so that, even if individual men return, from time to time, to healthy thought-patterns, the institution would remain in place to re-toxify them afterward.  

And thus arose the world's first patriarchy.  





Fast-forwarding through the ages, patriarchy didn't show a very good track record.  If matriarchy was hell for beta-males, patriarchy was hell for everybody.  The insanity produced by the corrupt civilization was unprecedented.  It caused more war, poverty, and suffering than ever.


Ironically, it produced even more sexual inequality than matriarchy did.  Patriarchal kings and emperors monopolized thousands of female partners as concubines, and turned the beta-males into actual slaves.  Not only did patriarchy come with a terrible price - it didn't even deliver the goods it was meant to deliver.  Patriarchy is a failed system by every conceivable measure.  And today, it's even threatening the continuation of our planet's ability to support Life.     

Fast-forwarding to modern times... 


People began to recognize the pathological nature of patriarchy.  And a movement began, to overcome it, and dismantle it.  The name of this movement is feminism. 

Feminism accomplished a lot of good things.  Many forms of oppression were eliminated or lessened, and a lot of people were able to feel more liberated than ever before.

But there was one key problem:  Feminism did not address sexual inequality.  It began to dismantle patriarchy without addressing the original problem that led humanity to create patriarchy in the first place.

In the late-20th century and early 21st, human society (in the "developed" world) began to mimick the conditions of primeval, pre-patriarchal culture.

The "Sexual Revolution" took off in the 1960's, liberating people from the socio-cultural restraints on sex.

Birth control pills came around at about the same time, liberating people from the worry of unintended pregnancy.

From the 1960's onward, each decade became more sexually liberated than the last.  For women, at least.  And for alpha-males.

Feminism created the conditions by which these two groups could once again explore the sexual realm with a similar level of freedom as the ancient matriarchy.  But, once again, the vast majority of men were left behind.  

With conditions similar to those times, the result was similar as well:  backlash.  

Square One led right back to Square Two.

Right back.

And the "coup" began anew.  It started in the form of the PUA (pick-up-artist) community.  The mission of that community was to help beta-males become successful in dating and sex.  But its methods were unsustainable.  They relied on breaking etiquette, doing things that were shocking, putting other men down, lying, and being selfish.  None of that is sustainable.  Shock wears off.  If every man is putting every other man down, then all the put-downs equalize and produce no net gains for anybody.  Lies can only be told so many times before people wise up to them.  If everybody is selfish, karma eventually comes back.

Each of these methods produced diminishing returns, and, by the time the 2010's were here, most of the PUA's were right back where they'd started.  

So PUA mass-consciousness branched off into a new direction:  It took on a more political tone.  It went from the nightclubs into the conference rooms.  Instead of focusing on individual men attracting individual women, it began to focus on reshaping society itself, to make the playing field more favorable.  It produced the MGTOW (men going their own way) movement, the Red Pill philosophy, and many other branches of thought that don't hold women in very high regard.


In hundreds of forums on dozens of social media platforms, the movement talked and debated.  And eventually, it identified patriarchy as the solution, and feminism as the obstacle standing in the way.  Just like 1000's of years ago.  History repeated.

Seeing feminism as its enemy, it identified all causes correlated with feminism as enemies also.  Environmentalism, globalism, socialism, liberalism, and anything else associated with the feminist side of politics became its enemy.  Meanwhile, capitalism, nationalism, and conservative/reactionary religious doctrines became seen as allies.

In 2015, all of these angles coalesced into a unified political camp called the Alt-Right.  

The Alt-Right then produced Donald Trump and similar politicians around the world.

People on the "Left" were taken off guard by this sudden worldwide lurch to the Right... perplexed by a seemingly inexplicable rejection of liberal values, in so many countries simultaneously.  But it's not a mystery if you understand the factors that led to it.  And those factors are nothing more, and nothing less, than the ancient conflict with the sexes, once again coming into the forefront of mass consciousness... hopefully, this time, to be resolved.


The relationship between the sexes (or, more precisely, between the metaphysical forces of feminine and masculine) is a core element of society, and a primary driver of events in human history. 


And its deterioration is the root of most conflicts, both individual and collective. 

There is a war raging between the two, and it's been going on for quite some time.  Most of our problems, challenges, and "issues" will not be solvable until we address this deeper conflict.

Humanity cannot move forward until we make #PeaceBetweenTheSexes.


This page is only for people who want to be peacemakers.  Please continue to read ONLY IF your intentions are to facilitate peace and understanding.  As you scroll down, there will be some difficult material relating to gender and sexual issues, and it may be emotionally triggering for some people.


This is your trigger warning.

There is a lot of pain related to this topic in the human psyche.  In fact, it may be the greatest reservoir of pain that we're carrying.  There are a lot of wounds to heal.  Some of them are quite deep. 

The process of healing them is surely not easy or simple.  It will take time, and probably a lot of tears as well.  We do not claim to have any quick-fix.  It's a complex process.

But here's the good news:  We know where to start.

The starting point is communication.

In order to begin the healing journey, the sexes (or the polarities, if you prefer), will have to start talking to each other.  There needs to be a dialogue between them.  Each side needs the ability to share its stories, and to hear the stories of the other side. 

No matter how complicated the journey is, communication is the first step, and we can start it now.



1.  Acknowledge that everyone has been affected by this war.  No one has navigated through it unscathed.  Everyone has been hurt, everyone has wounds, everyone resents what they consider to be the other side, and everyone has reasons. 

2.  Acknowledge that the communication is the key to peacemaking.  There has to be a way to have dialogue, a channel through which we can at least communicate with one another.  Be willing to talk.

3.  Acknowledge that the goal is to make Peace with the other side, not to beat the other side.  The war is not their fault entirely - it's neither side's fault entirely, and both share in the responsibility.  Take this as a basic philosophical premise, and evaluate all subsequent logic from it, from the assumption of the Fundamental Equality of Responsibility - and if it seems to you that the other gender is more culpable than yours, assume that it must be because you haven't yet heard the whole story. 

Assume that if you were to hear the whole story, you would see that either your gender is more culpable than you'd originally thought, or the other gender is less culpable than you'd originally thought, or both.  Either way, assume that each gender played a role in co-creating this situation, and you'll acquire the listening skills to hear and find out that the assumption was correct all along.  This is what Peacemakers do, even though, to their comrades-in-arms, it seems crazy.  And when the people on the other side who have done the same crazy thing notice, together you'll constitute leaders of the Peace Process. 

"Are you saying all conflicts are equally everyone's fault?  Are you saying there's no such thing as an aggressor, and no such thing as a victim?  No such thing as guilt or innocence?  Every conflict's participants are all equally culpable?"

Not all conflicts- just this one.  The gender one specifically.

Other conflicts may indeed have a clear aggressor and a clear victim. 

But not this one - not the gender one, because the genders are more than just arbitrary sides in an arbitrary conflict - they are metaphysical components of Reality, and their conflict reflects a duality at a deep level of Reality. 

It's one thing to blame a nation for starting a war with another nation, but it's quite another thing to say it's all protons' fault, or all the fault of "up."

It's not a false equivalency if the things we're comparing really are equivalent.  And if they're metaphysical principles, they can indeed be (and are) equivalent.  They equally constitute the fabric of Reality. 

4.  Acknowledge that the process of healing can be messy.  As you listen to the other side share their authentic experiences, you're going to hear things that you didn't want to hear.  They could be offensive, triggering, or just plain shocking.  Whatever they are, be present, don't run away from the conversation, and don't interrupt.  Be present.

5.  Listen to the other side.  And don't just listen - actively solicit their stories.  Actively seek to learn about their experiences.


To address the grievances of the other side, we first have to learn what they are.  A real conversation might go something like:

Man:  "What are the main ways in which my sex/gender has been hurting you?"

Woman:  (Makes a list of ways, and shares stories of personal experiences that illustrate them).

Then, we switch sides.

Woman:  "What are the main ways in which my sex/gender has been hurting you?"


Man:  (Makes a list of ways, and shares stories of personal experiences that illustrate them).

It's not the time for arguing yet.  The purpose (so far) is not to debate and argue - it's just to listen, to find out what issues the other side is dealing with.


Once we've done that, we can proceed to discussing the actual grievances of each side. 

Continue to the next page:

4. Peace Between the Sexes - Part 2: Grievances


Now that we've established an ability to communicate (see Part 1) with each other and have a dialogue, we can begin to address the grievances that have powered our animosities. 

We've prepared a list here, which may serve as a template for launching the discussion.

First are the simple grievances - physical, tangible, concrete, measurable, verifiable.  Then come the meta-grievances - overarching patterns that summarize how the simple ones affect life.

"I don't agree with this idea.  I dont even agree thta there should BE a list with two columns.  It's ONE WAY.  It's MEN oppressing WOMEN, and that's the ONLY way it goes, end of story!"


"Because look at all the ways that women are oppressed.  Look at all the ways men are privileged!  There's a whole long list of ways!"

That's true - there is a list. 

But there's also a list of the opposite:  The ways in which men are disadvantaged, and women are privileged.

There are two columns - not just one. 


"That's preposterous!  Even if this so-called "men's oppression / women's privilege" column exists, it's obviously tiny and insignificant compared to the standard women's oppression column."


And how would you know that?  Have you ever compiled a list for the second column?


"Well, no..."


So if you've never even seen the second column, how can you compare the two?  How can you be sure that one is heavier than the other?


If you spend your whole life only looking at one column, and ignoring the other, then of course, the first will seem more significant than the second.

"How about you give some examples?"


The male privilege of Presumption of Competence.  In most situations when a man speaks, people just assume that he's competent, even if he's not, whereas, when a woman speaks, people assume she's not competent, even if she is.  Men are presumed to have more competence than a women.  That is indeed a male privilege, and it is a legitimate grievance of women.

But in the other column, women have the privilege of Presumption of Innocence.  Whenever a man and a woman are in dispute, people naturally believe that the woman is the victim, and the man is the villain.  They side with her over the man.


Plus, women are more likely to be "let off the hook" in relation to law enforcement.  Women receive fewer traffic citations than men - even for the same violation.  Men are more likely to be convicted in court.  And even if a woman is convicted of a crime, judges are more likely to believe that she made an "innocent mistake", and give her a lenient punishment.  Men receive longer sentences than women for the same crimes - the same way POC receive longer sentences than white people.  If there's an outcry over that disparity (as there should be), why is there no comparable outcry on behalf of men?

Another example:  jobs.

Women used to be barred from holding jobs.  This is true, and it's a legitimate grievance.

But at the same time, men also suffered.  They suffered from being barred from not holding jobs.

Ask yourself, would you rather be:


A)  not allowed to work in a coal mine...


B)  not allowed not to work in a coal mine?

"I would choose B!"

So you'd rather be forced to go underground, in hot, smelly, noxious fumes, doing backbreaking work, for 16 hours a day, and get black lung disease... than be forced to cook and clean your house and watch your kids?

"Ummm... yes!"

Intellectual honesty is a prerequisite to being a peacemaker.  If you can't even be honest, then you're not going to contribute to peace.

"Fine... I'll admit it... men had it worse in this regard.  But! - Women weren't allowed to fight in wars!"

Again, would you rather be:

A)  Forced into grueling training, marched off for weeks and months at a time, carrying heavy loads of weapons, wearing armor, sleeping in your armor, night after night, without bathing, woken up at dawn after only a few hours sleep and then marched again, through the cold, through snow, sleeping in snow, sleeping in your armor in snow, eating rationed food, bland, stale, rationed food, while marching all day and barely sleeping (in your armor)... knowing, the entire time, that reaching your destination means facing a thousand heavily armed maniacs who want to murder you, and then getting knocked, beaten, bludgeoned, sliced open, and left to marinate in pain and a pool of your own blood, surrounded by the moaning, screaming, crying, and wailing of hundreds of other people dying in pain in pools of THEIR blood, knowing that you will either leave the world like this, or, if you're saved, you'll probably have to get limbs amputated, without anesthesia...


B)  Not allowed to do all that.

Be honest this time.

"But at least men had the freedom to choose!"

No they didn't.  Conscription has always been forced.

"But who started all those wars?  Men!  Men were making the decisions to start the wars and march off all the soldiers!"

What difference does that make to the actual soldiers marching?  Why does it mater if it's a woman starting the war, or a man starting it?  Do you think the poor soldier getting his leg amputated without anesthesia, biting down on the leather strap to avoid fainting from the pain, is thinking, "Well, at least this whole mess was started by someone of the same gender as me.."?

What difference does it make?

"Fine, you win again.  But what about voting?  Women have been denied the vote for 99% of human history!"

And men were denied the vote for 98% of human history.  How old is democracy again?

"Hmmm... fair point.  But... 99% is still greater than 98%!"

So that's a point for women, in the women's grievance column.  A small point, but a point nonetheless. 

How does it compare to war and coal mines?

"OK, but what about sexual slavery?"

That's a legitimate grievance.  And how about non-sexual slavery?

"Fair point again.  But what about sultans with harems of hundreds of concubines?"

What about the hundreds of eunuchs who went along with them?  For every concubine, there was a eunuch.  Do they matter?

"But what about the gender pay gap?  That's still going on today."

And what are men spending the extra money on?

Pursuing women.  Buying gifts for women.  Trying to win women's affections.


Women begin the game holding the prize for which men play it, and you're complaining that men have a leg up in the competition to win the very thing that you don't even need to win because you began the game already holding it?

"But legislatures are still composed primarily of men.  Most presidents, prime ministers, governors, judges, and other leaders, are still men."

What matters is not who is in office - what matters is what kinds of decisions they make.  The decisions are what actually impact people - not the identities of the ones making them.

And what kinds of decisions are these mostly male legislatures making?  Pro-woman ones, apparently.



Men are 97% of combat fatalities.

Men pay 97% of Alimony.

Men make 94% of work suicides.

Men make up 93% of work fatalities.

Men make up 81% of all war deaths.

Men lose custody in 84% of divorces.

80% of all suicides are men.

77% of homicide victims are men.

89% of men will be the victim of at least one violent crime.

Men are over twice as victimized by strangers as women.

Men are 165% more likely to be convicted than women.

Men get 63% longer sentences than women for the same crime.

Court bias against men is at least 6 times bigger than racial bias.

Boys face vastly more corporal punishment than girls.

60-80% of the homeless are men.

Women's Cancers receive 15 times more funding than men's.

At least 10% of fathers are victims of paternity fraud.

One third of all fathers in the USA have lost custody of children. Most are expected to pay for this.

40-70% of domestic violence is against men - however less than 1% of domestic violence shelter spaces are for men.

There are departments for women's issues in the White House and the UN, but none for men. The UN promotes genital mutilation of male children but condemns female genital mutilation.

Men earn 61.5% of all income but only account for 25% of domestic spending.

Men only spend 40% of what they earn after tax. In contrast women make up 38.5% of all income but control 75% of domestic spending.  Women on average spend 90% more money than they earn.  This can even be observed in the floor space allocated to women's products in most shopping centers.


Men pay over 70% of income tax but the vast majority of public spending is on services for women. There is more money spent on breast cancer than lung cancer and prostate cancer combined, despite the fact that lung cancer alone has 3-4 times more fatalities than breast cancer.

A man's chance of getting cancer is 44% and 23% of men will die from cancer, 38% of women get cancer and 19% die. Yet there is vastly more money spent on cancer for women.  Women pay 60% less tax despite spending 300% more in domestic spending than men. Women also consume two third of public spending, there are 3 times the amount of gender specific health services for women than men despite the fact that for equal increases in health spending a man's life expectancy rate increases nearly twice as much as a woman's


There are hundreds of surveys which shows women are as violent if not more violent than men in domestic violence cases. Men get arrested in 85% of all arrests but its estimated that Women are the perpetrators in most Domestic Violence cases. Most reciprocal violence is started by women and 70% of non reciprocal violence is perpetrated by women. Women however only get arrested in 15% of all DV arrests. This example of 572 different studies covering 371,600 people demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.

More men than women were victims of intimate partner physical violence and over 40% of severe physical violence was directed at men.

Despite this, 99.3% of DV shelter spaces are for women and even men who report violence against them by women are arrested far more often than the woman who is attacking them.

"Where are the scientific sources for these claims?"

You can see the sources at

"So you're just gonna say that women have everything perfect, and men are oppressed by women?  Is that what you're getting at?"

No, that's not what was said.

"Oh, so you're saying the oppression is "equal"?  Is that it?"

It's impossible for anyone to truly, objectively assess the balance of oppression, and determine which sex truly has more of it, because neither sex has a full comprehension of the experiences and struggles of the other.


If you're a man, you don't fully understand what it's like to be a woman, so you can't properly compare the two sets of experiences.  And the same goes for women, too:  You don't know what it's like to be a man, and you can't weigh the two either. 


So what we suggest is for both sexes to give the benefit of the doubt to the other. 

Men should give women the benefit of the doubt that women's struggles and grievances are more serious than it may seem, from a man's perspective.

And conversely, women should do the same:  admit that men's struggles may be harder than you think, from your female vantage point.

The end result will be both sexes treating each other's struggles as equally serious and important to deal with. 

When both sexes do this, we can stop pursuing the endless litigation of "who has it worse", and, instead, focus on solving the problems - for everyone.

Both sexes feel they're not being taken seriously enough.  The answer is not to take one less seriously - it's to take both seriously.  And if there's one you're currently not taking seriously yet, START.

And this is why we don't support the use of the term "feminism."  Because the word itself implies that we want to bring more power to women from men, implying of course that one column is weightier than the other. 

"Are you saying women an feminists should stop saying that women are the oppressed sex?"

Yes.  There is no oppressed sex.  We're all oppressed.  As you can see from the columns above, and from even a cursory glance at history.

And the sooner we recognize our commonalities, we can stand in solidarity with each other, and begin cooperating to truly fix things.

"Alright, I guess there's a lot I didn't know, about men and their struggles.  I kinda feel sorry for men now.  I'd like to make peace.

However, there's a little problem.  There are lots of men out there who don't seem to want peace.  They're full of anger and hate.

I think, if you showed this list to the average feminist, you would stimulate some genuine discussion and reflection.  Feminists do want to make the world better - for everyone.  Perhaps we should be nicer to men, and include more men's issues in our movement.  I'm fine with that.  Feminism is for everyone!

But the men out there... sheesh.  It's like they're at war with us.  Look at what's happened in the past few years:  The Alt-Right, Donald Trump, incels, all sorts of misogyny on the internet...

Even if I choose peace, what about those dudes?  Somehow I don't think equalizing jail sentences and cancer-research expenditures is going to satisfy them.  Even if we fixed everything on that list, I don't think it would matter to these men.  I think there's something deeper going on." 

You're right about that.  There is a deeper grievance in the male psyche, which goes beyond statistics.

The Alt-Right is basically a backlash against feminism.  And the men who are likely to join this backlash are the ones who feel disenfranchised by feminism.

"How can anyone be anti-feminist?  What reservations could any (decent, thinking) man POSSIBLY have against women achieving equal rights?"

It's a good thing that women are attaining more freedom.  We want women to have full rights and freedom.  That's all good.  

But the way it's been done, the course that feminism has taken - especially in recent years - it's neglected men.  It does pay attention to men who are not straight, but it neglects heterosexual men.  The world that feminism is building is leaving heterosexual men out.  And nobody likes to be left out.  

"How is feminism leaving heterosexual men out?"

It's building a world in which hetero men are increasingly unable to meet their needs. 


"Which needs?"


The need specific to hetero men is the need to form an intimate relationship with a woman.  That is a need.


"Oh please.  It's not a need.  It's not like food or water.  You don't die if you don't get it."


"Not gonna die if you don't get it" is not exactly a fair standard for determining what's a need.  It's not a survival need, but it's pretty close.  The need for intimacy is just above survival on the Maslow Pyramid.  One step removed from it.  

"I don't agree.  Sex is absolutely not a need in any way, shape or form.  Men who think they need sex are just regurgitating the age-old ideology of patriarchal entitlement to ownership of women's bodies.  Their "bros" and other male "authority figures" told them that they need sex in order to be "real men", and all they're REALLY doing when they seek sex, is seeking approval and validation from their MALE friends and role models.  But it's all a lie, and they don't really need sex, or intimacy."


This argument usually tends to come from people who are currently in sexual relationships.  If sex really doesn't matter, then why do you have it?  How about quitting? 


"That's preposterous.  There's no good that would come from that."


Not true!  If you quit, you can show all of these entitled dudes that it's not necessary.  They'll feel like you're in solidarity with them, and it'll give them strength to better themselves..  You'll demonstrate how they can live perfectly happy lives without sex or intimacy, and totally destroy their arguments about its necessity.


How about it? 


"Ummm... I get what you mean, but... no thanks.  I like having sex."


Or how about this argument:  If a gay person is living in a country with laws against gay sex, why don't they just... you know... not have sex?


If sex is not a need... and having sex risks severe punishment... then isn't the solution simple?  Just don't have sex, and nobody will get hurt.


"Anti-gay legislation is about more than just sex - it's about identity.  Their identities are criminalized.  It's illegal to BE who they ARE."

No, the anti-gay legislation in places like Uganda and Saudi Arabia doesn't criminalize anyone's "identity."  BEING gay is not illegal - not anywhere.


What they criminalize is behavior.  Specifically, sexual intercourse.  And if a gay person refrains from having sexual intercourse, they're not violating any legislation - not even in the most homophobic countries.

So all they have to do is not have sex.  They can continue being who they are, as long as they don't get intimate with any partners of the same sex.

"That argument is insulting!  It denies the deep need for intimacy that gay people have."


And do straight people not have the same need?


You see, the argument that "sex and intimacy don't matter, and no one should care if they're not able to have it" is a disingenuous argument that reeks of hypocrisy.

Intimacy is a need.


And it's a need that societies, from time immemorial, have structured themselves to meet.

Any society you look at, from anywhere in the world, has these things in common:


1.  It's structured to make sure as many people as possible can eat, keep warm, and survive

2.  It's structured to make sure as many people as possible can find intimate partners, marry, and start families.


This is a major component of social design in all societies, whether they were designed intentionally, or evolved over time. 


And feminism ignores #2 completely, at least in regard to heterosexual men.  Feminism has no plan for this, no means of addressing it, and, in fact, refuses to address it on principle.  The very idea of addressing this need is a no-go topic among feminists.  We're not even allowed to talk about it.  When it comes to heterosexual men, feminism is not even trying. 

Feminism is not addressing them.  

It would be one thing if things weren't perfect, but feminism was still talking to us and giving us the sense that it cares about us, and wants to take our concerns into consideration.  But it's not even doing that.  It treats the mere mention that heterosexual men matter and have needs, as a form of blasphemy.  

"But that's because hetero men still have power!  You ran the world!  You still have so much power leftover, and we're still not done dismantling patriarchy!"

That may be so, but the power that we have comes from the leftover system - the legacy system - or as you all it, patriarchy.  That's where our power comes form, and whatever power we retain, we retain because there's still that amount of patriarchy left in our culture.  We only retain power to the extent that our culture retains patriarchy.  And since patriarchy hasn't been completely dismantled, it still grants us some power.

But the whole point of feminism is to get rid of patriarchy, and by extension, to get rid of all of our power.  

So if feminism's goals are achieved, we won't have any power anymore.  We'll be helpless.  We'll have no means of leverage with which to meet our needs.  Feminism is barreling towards this world at top speed. 

So that's why we're reluctant to fully get on board the feminism train.  Most of us want some degree of feminism, because we want women to have power and choice.  But we don't want to be completely powerless ourselves.  We want to maintain a balance between male and female power.  And if feminism gets its way, men will have no power, and women will have all the power.  And that's not balanced.  

"Why are you so concerned about power?  Why does women's power make you feel so threatened?  Why do powerful women make you so uncomfortable?  What are you afraid of?  What are you afraid will happen if women have power and you don't?"


We won't be able to meet our needs.  Power - specifically, the kinds provided by patriarchal systems - gives us leverage with which to meet our needs - to attract female partners.  Without that power, many men will have no way to do that anymore.

There are two ways that we can get our needs met.


One is to revert to patriarchy, and that's what some men are trying to do.  This effort has crystallized around a movement called the manosphere, which is the intellectual source of the Alt-Right.  But not all of us what to go back to that system, because, hey, patriarchy was unbalanced too.  We don't want to erase the gains in freedom attained by women.  We want women to remain free, and become more and more free.  But we want the same for men too, for men to be free as well.


The other way is to help empower men, emotionally and sexually. 

Under patriarchy, men held economic and political power, while women held emotional and sexual power.  Feminism has (mostly) evened out the field in economics and politics, but has not done so in emotion and sexuality at all.  Men are still just as helpless, emotionally and sexually, as women used to be, economically and politically. 

So the answer, if you want equality, but don't want to do it by un-freeing people, but rather by continuing to free people - is to help men gain proficiency in the sexual realm.

"And how should we do that?  By walking up to random creepy men on the street, and sleeping with them?"

No, that's extreme and absurd. 


There's a much easier, safer, cleaner way to help us:  Treat us like people.


If feminism wants to win our support, there's a really simple way to do that:


Step 1:  Acknowledged the everybody matters, including men, including hetero men.   We matter.  Look us in the eyes and say it.

Step 2:  Open up to the possibility that life is not perfect for us - far from it - and that we may have concerns, grievances, and unmet needs.  

Step 3:  The next time one of us tries to explain those concerns, needs, or grievances to you in a respectful manner, LISTEN, and allow us to explain.  Listen with an open mind and be genuinely curious to find out what it's like for us.  Use your empathy.  Everyone needs empathy, even if they're from a historically powerful demographic.  They're still alive, and they still have needs, and sometimes those needs are unmet.  Would it really hurt for you to listen to us?  

"OK, I'm listening.  What are your grievances and unmet needs?  What could possibly be wrong in the world of a straight man?"

The need of hetero men is the ability to form intimate relationship with a woman.

"And why do you believe that feminism - i.e. women's freedom - is responsible for taking away this ability?"

Because patriarchal systems are the way in which many of us have been able to meet this need, historically.  In prior generations, it was how we were able to partner, to find intimacy, to marry - whatever term you want to use.

Patriarchy assists us in making that happen.  By smashing patriarchy, you're also smashing our ability to find partnership.  

"And how does patriarchy help you in that regard?"

In two ways. 


The first is through division of roles.  In the old days, men provided food, shelter, and physical nourishment, while women provided emotional nourishment, as well as home-making and child-rearing. 


Feminism has created a world in which women are now their own breadwinners, and no longer need men for this purpose.  Thus, men have no more "use" to women.  We have nothing to bargain with.


"So you're saying that the only way men could find partners was to BRIBE women?  And that most of you would be WORTHLESS as partners without the ability to bribe us?  That's such a sad way to look at things - to look at yourselves.  Maybe you need some more self-esteem, or self-confidence or... something."

This is not a "confidence" issue - it's just how things are.  A woman's attraction mechanism turns itself on for men who can provide an economic and social upgrade for her.  This is hard-wired into our species by nature and evolution.

"Um, no, I'm a woman, and I have a male partner who I love so much, and whom I'm attracted to, and he's not providing me with an "economic or social upgrade."  In fact, I've got more money and status than him!"

On a personal level, things vary from individual to individual.  But when you zoom out to the scale of a whole society, the trends are true.  It's like predicting the position of an electron in an electron-cloud.  You can't predict which electrons will be in which layers at any given time, but you can predict how many electrons each layer will have.

No one can predict how any individual person will act, or to whom they will be attracted.  But you can predict the overall trend. 

Sociologists estimate that about 10% of any given population is LGBT.  You can't look at an individual person and predict that he or she will be LGBT or not - but you can still say that 10% of the population will be.  When we zoom out to societal scales, we can make these kinds of observations. 

"But that's still an awful deal for women.  You're saying that, in some hugely significant portion of the population, partnerships only occur out of necessity, and that the people aren't even attracted to one another?  Or, the woman isn't even attracted to the man she's marrying, and is only marrying him to get bread and a roof?  That's so... icky."


Actually, no, that's not how it works.  In most cases, it's not a calculated decision - the woman is not overriding her feelings to settle for a provider-man.  On the contrary, the man's provider status triggers the woman's attraction mechanism.  In most patriarchal systems, wives do feel attraction for their husbands - Nature turns the attraction on, precisely because the man is providing. 


"That's nonsense.  MY "attraction mechanism" doesn't get turned on just because a guy has a job."


That's because you have a job.  You win your own bread, and you don't need him, and so this mechanism does not occur.  It only occurs if the man is of high enough status to provide you with an upgrade to your current status. 

What about rich men?  Famous rich men?  Celebrities?  Do you feel attraction for them? 

"OK, I get what you're saying.  Feminism sabotaged this mechanism.  You said there were two ways, though - two ways in which patriarchy helps men attain female partners.  What's the other way?"

The other way is through culturally-encouraged monogamy.  

"Is that like "forced monogamy?"  I LOL'ed when that Alt-Right professor guy said that!"

Jordan Peterson got in hot water because he didn't explain it well.


In social systems without patriarchy, when women are free to make whatever sexual choices they want, with no consequences or social pressure of any kind,they tend to congregate around a small percentage of men, leaving the rest of the men without partners.  


Patriarchy designed the concept of stigmatizing polygamy/polyamory in order to prevent "alpha males" from monopolizing multiple females at the expense of other men. 

In fact, this was the driving force behind why patriarchy was started in the first place.


"Oh really?  The original cause of patriarchy, eh?"


Is that something of interest to you?


If you spent your whole life fighting it, aren't you curious about what caused it in the first place?  

We have to go back in time, way back - to the roots of human culture, thousands of years ago.  


Are you saying sex?  Is "love" just a euphemism?

That's one level, but multiple levels

if woman assault, serious.  if man , not serious.  actually socially acceptable to laugh about it.  No tjust hta tpeople some trolls on some page somwehre, its everyone, mainstream, socially accepta ble to joke about men getting raped.    in in circles that are woke, progressive, feminist, so call defenders of equality liberation and justice and compassion, still accept jokes about men getting raped.  go to comments section about some man sent to jail, petty, corporate, whatever ,any man, make a joke about him getting forcibly sodomized by fellow inmates, and see if you get banned ffro the group, or even warned or censured or called out at all .

Domestic violence statistices of women on fmen.  Try going to a feminist group on social media, supposed to be about equality, ending oppressiong and all that, share those statistics an see if you're sitll in tehg roup  24 hours late.r  custody battle,s infnaicl extortionk paternity, all that stuff

Not socially acceptalb eot care abou tmen.  The moment you say care bou tmen, the ruling faciton will come after you.  Shoiut you down, drown you out, ush shove, horrible names, verbally abuse, and try to sabotage your ability to speak.  Pressure othes to deplatfor you. 

Shirts that say i bathe in male tears

It is socially acceptable to only abuse the entire sex gender of man, in public.  And unacceptable to publicly voice concern for mens issues na dmens needs. 

As Voltaire said...

Given that thi si s happening, can oyou realy claim that the male sex gender is in conrol of society? 


htey didn't create patriachy from a place of power - but from a place of non-poewr, and an attempt (the wrong kind, but nonethess) to even out the power balance.  so that they could become equal to YOU.  Patrarichy was luanched asn attempt (a failed on, but nonetheness) by men to attain equal power with women.

And the people today whom you blieve are anti woman, it's the same way for them - they don't feel that htey have power and control over yo and they're about to lose it and afraid of being equal - they don't feel that way.  They feel thattheyre NEVER had power ATALL . And the sytems that hey have in place are feeble attempts to gain back a few crunmbs.  They don't believe its' equal yet for them, and when you try to take it away, they see it as a person at a freast, trying to take away what little crumbs they still have.  Thats the way they see it.


No one takes seriously.  If a man says he's suffering, nobody cares.

If you're a woman and you're oppressed, you at least support for you.  If you're a man, there is no support group.  No socially sacntioned one.  All support for men is underground - it's not allowed in polite circles.  And the censorship police are after it.  Women have speaces, men are not allowed to, men are not allowed to have discussion groups.  If they do, people will call for their censorshipo and deplatforming.   In fact, to even claim to hHAVE a grievance is a forbidden offense.  Men are not even allowed to GRIEVE for theor own suffeing.  That would make them a bad feminist. 

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
Subscribe to the Earth Party weekly newsletter!

To donate,

visit our Patreon Page.


Questions?  Comments?


This site was designed with the
website builder. Create your website today.
Start Now