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.
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.)
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.
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.
Continue to the next page: