Power – women, sex – men: how we think

Women think in terms of power and men in terms of sex; this is innate.

Women’s best chance of success in evolutionary terms is the protection of their children. They are limited in how many they can have and rear to maturity, and childbirth, without modern medicine, is extremely dangerous. So women constantly (and reasonably) seek control (power) over their own reproduction, since for them, choosing a good mate is paramount. This extends over the space they live in — so that male aggression in particular is removed and with it the risk of violence, accidental or otherwise to children.

As women move out of the Home Group space and into the broader society they take these objectives with them, and this leads them to try to gain power over that society in the same way.  So, although the impetus is evolution and reproduction, this is expressed as a desire for power. That is why the abortion debate is so polarised: nothing can ever be allowed to challenge a woman’s power over her own body, even the rights of her unborn child.

Men’s Best Bet

Men’s best evolutionary bet is to impregnate as many fertile women as possible. They have no need to participate in the rearing of children, in order to reproduce their genes; in fact it mitigates against their reproductive interests. Men are powerfully motivated to have sex, but in a society where women have power over their bodies and so control the supply of sex, this is only available under the rules defined by those women. This is organised such that men are required to focus on one particular woman. They become the sexual property of that woman.

This explains, on the one hand, why men are always checking girls, and on the other, why marriage exists; to prevent men from impregnating the large numbers of women that they would do, were they able. The notion that marriage turns women into property is an egregious lie*; it makes men the property of women. The price is sex.

Further, in order to secure mates, men are required to compete with each other, because women, with power over their reproduction, are choosy. Money, status, authority — for men these are all sexually-motivated concerns. Success in them improves their chances of sex and so of reproducing.


In other words, men have to compete to get sex because women have power over their own bodies, and women have evolved this power because it is a benefit to them. Remember, the population of any society is dependent on the number of successful mothers, not fathers. Penetrating as many women as possible would be a reasonable strategy for a man; but being a good mother — that means, one who raises children to sexual maturity — is a successful strategy for a woman. And because women control the access to sex, they have power over men.

So, while both are rooted in the need to reproduce genes, men think in terms of sex and women in terms of power.

Strategies and Imbalance

Women have evolved strategies of cooperation and long term group planning, because these help them to maintain power over their own reproduction against bigger, stronger, more violent men. Men have  have evolved strategies of competitiveness and rapid action, which make them more attractive as mates and so more likely to get sex. These, together, are what make Homo sapiens so successful. Taking one of them away results in catastrophic imbalance — and that is what we are seeing today.

The problem today is that feminists deny the root of this, which is an innate, evolved, set of sex-specific, different trait characteristics, known collectively as ‘gender’ This denial they have borrowed from Marxism.

This, in order to promote its collectivist Utopia, denies the existence of these  psychological trait characteristics, which can actually be measured. Science-denial is not new for the Left; it is in its bones. Truth must never be allowed to impede the cult’s objectives; and that applies as much to Feminism as Marxism.

As women, in the West, have moved out of the Home Group and begun to penetrate the broader society, they demand the same power as they have within the home group, and this is why we see such massive hostility towards masculinity.

Balante: a real matriarchy

What happens in real matriarchies, like the one in Balante, in the Philippines, where I lived in earlier this year? In Balante, men are invisible, because the village is a Home space and so women have authority. There is no expression of masculinity. When men want to be masculine, they go to the spaces that are allotted for that, notably the basketball court or one of the public areas where one finds more-or-less ad-hoc benches. Here are the stubs of cigarettes and the evidence of male society, and most afternoons and evenings, older men congregate here to be masculine. They do not do it at home, because women control that space. So men have their spaces, separate from women’s spaces.

In the West, where woman have already destroyed their matriarchies at the behest of Feminists, women are almost obliged to enter the space of work that would always have been the Away (Men) group’s preserve and, as their numbers have increased, so does the pressure for them to exercise power over this space too. In other words, these spaces become part of the Home Space, when women are present in sufficient numbers.

The basketball court at Balante, Plaridel, Philippines. This is an Away or men space, outside the Home space. Pic Rod Fleming

The result is that masculinity is suppressed within them and eventually the men will move out, leaving only women and the not-men. These are, as I have explained before, homosexual and other gender non-conforming males; the latter includes those males whose strategy is to appear less masculine in order to secure sex from women conditioned to reject masculinity.

The results

In the West we already see the results of this. Young men are not entering the workplace. They’re not marrying. They are occupying other spaces, often online ones. The fact that online porn is so ubiquitous means that sexual gratification is available to them without women.

(As an aside, this is the reason feminists are so hostile to prostitution and pornography. It has nothing to do with ‘protecting vulnerable women’ and everything to do with controlling the availability of sex, thus controlling men and thereby society. I will be writing more on this.)

Social Bargain

Sex is a social bargain. Men agree to behave in certain ways in order to have access to it. However, men’s need for sex is in their need to orgasm, as women have so often pointed out. If they can do that vicariously, then much of the need for dealing with women is greatly mitigated. This is because, while evolution requires that we produce babies, for men, this is largely felt as a need to have a lot of orgasms. Men, typically, do not reach their ‘daddy panic moment’ until their mid to late thirties, at which time they are ready to settle with one woman and raise a family.

However, years of achieving sexual release in other ways may mean that such men cannot relate sexually to women, in order to become fathers. This was well documented in Sparta, where men were encouraged to take boys as lovers. They lived in communal barracks and one can only imaging the sexual shenanigans that were going on in these masculine pressure-cookers. The men only entered the city to perform their duty by impregnating their wives to make more babies — but this they were often incapable of doing, because they had been so conditioned to seek sexual reward with boys.

Release and Reward

All sexual reward has a conditioning element, for both men and women, though it seems less powerful for the latter. If men achieve sexual release in ways that do not involve women, and in addition, their pursuit of women becomes socially rejected, then they may well not pursue sex with women at all.

It is likely that, as they approach 35, their natural biological clock will kick in, but with a history of not being able to pursue sex with women and adopting avoidant sexual practices, the chances of their success is low.

In the medium term, this means the decline of the population, which, of course is exactly what we are seeing in the West, with reproduction rates at an all-time low and falling. This is catastrophic.

In the longer term, it becomes part of a selected-for genetic shift in which only the weaker, less powerful men will be allowed to reproduce, leading to a weaker society. This is a society vulnerable to be taken over by a more masculine culture.

In the West, of course, this masculine culture, waiting in the wings, is Islam. As long as Christendom was strong and assertive, masculine and robust, it had nothing to fear from the cult of the moon god. But weakened and brought to its knees by feminism, it will fall victim.


The other possibility — one we have seen in Europe before — is the violent backlash.

The former Soviet States were under the heel of Marxism, which is a closely related to feminism, for decades. Consider what happened in the former Yugoslavia when that nightmare was ended. The bloodshed. Think of Srebrenica. Women today may seriously desire to re-engineer society so that there are only 10% men and keep those in concentration camps, but that will not work. Who will be the armed guards ready to kill these men? All the men are already inside. And if they do break out, then 10% of angry men will totally destroy a society of women. Crush it. And backlash is where feminism is taking us.


Women today need to realise that feminism will lead to one of two ends: takeover by Islam, in which case all the freedoms that they have acquired will vanish, along with everything good that remains in Western society, or a violent, bloody backlash against their hegemony by angry, strong, armed men, who will go on a punishment rape spree that women could do nothing to prevent. The feminist Utopia, in which men are the docile, obedient poodles of women, will never happen.

Two sides of one coin

You think this is impossible? Although the truth is that matriarchy and patriarchy are two sides of the same social coin, in which society is divided into spaces where women have authority — as in Balante — and spaces where men do, outside the home, the idea of a mythical forgotten society in which women did rule over men has never quite died out.

This contemporary feminist matriarchy, of course, is entirely invented, from a late 20th century perspective, just as the myth of patriarchy was invented, from the same standpoint, by feminist cult apologists like Gloria Steinem. It never existed, so how could it rule?

Society was always a balance between women’s spaces and men’s.  It is about the maintenance of discreet spheres of influence, something feminists are determined to destroy.

The role of women has always been mothers, with power over the home space, and men of warrior-protectors, with dominion over the away space, the world of hunt, of warfare and of work.

It is only in the last hundred years, as women have sought to enter the away space and so, since they innately think it terms of control, dominate it, that anyone thought twice about this.

On one hand, feminism acts to destroy the matriarchy, by condemning, in the most insulting terms, any woman who admits that she would much rather stay at home with her kids than go out to work; and on the other it seeks to destroy all male spaces — ‘the patriarchy’ — by colonising them and forcing them to become feminised.

Woman’s unhappiness is the delight of Feminism

We now know that women are becoming increasingly unhappy, and this is because they are no longer doing that which would make them happy, having and raising children. There are no unhappy women in Balante. They don’t need to go to the city to compete with men. Their men go there and work, while the women run the home. Women in the West are unhappy because feminism denies them the opportunity to be happy by doing the same.

At the same time, as we have seen the rise of feminism in the West, we have seen the rise of State involvement in our lives and the appalling increase in its size and cost. Why would we have State-funded crèches? Here the State and Capitalism form a ghastly bargain, with the State taking tax money to fund opportunities for entrepreneurs who provide ‘child care’ services — when their mothers are busy being miserable at work! You could not make this up; and behind it all is feminism and its horrific succubus, Marxism, otherwise known as Socialism.


Feminism, therefore, acts against the interests of both men and women. It denies choice to both women and to men. There is no patriarchy; it’s just men hanging out together without interference from women, probably talking about sex, shying stones at cans or other masculine practices; and yes, competing with each other. But feminists, with their obsession with power and control over everything, cannot stand to see any space where men can be free to do that.

That is why we have seen men’s golf clubs, social clubs, places of work invaded, colonised and abolished. Those who resist or dare to speak out are punished by the appalling, anti-masculine laws written and voted through by women and those men hoodwinked by feminism, or cynical enough to play along in the hope of being rewarded with some leftover sex. These men are happy to see their rivals put down; they are thinking in terms of sex, after all.

Why should men not have their own spaces? Women have always had them; if they chose to abandon them, it was hardly men’s doing.

A social experiment in power

Feminism has forced us into a massive social experiment, the ends of which remain unclear. There is no prediction for what might happen save the ‘end of the (mythical) patriarchy’. But the patriarchy is just male society, the Balante basketball court and those makeshift benches. It is the men-only golf clubs and other spaces that women have already invaded and destroyed.

If feminist orthodoxy were to be dispensed with and everyone accepted that men and women ARE NOT THE SAME, and so require their own spaces where women can be feminine and men can be masculine, then there would be no problem. The root of the issue is in feminist denial that the trait characteristics which constitute gender are innate, evolved, and essential to human success.

Any time somebody says ‘gender is just a social construct’ they are denying both science and reality; there is no excuse for such levels of ignorance today and such a statement must therefore be seen as a blatant lie.

However, the Left, and that includes feminists (in fact, Cultural Marxism is just feminism in new clothes) know fine well that if we say, ‘Well it’s just nature, we can’t change it so let’s forget about it,’ and move on to practical ways of actually solving our problems, then they cannot achieve the revolution their cult demands. Feminism doesn’t want to solve problems; it deliberately creates them where none exist.

Feminists know that if Western women were happy, as the women are in Balante, then their great social experiment would wither and die. So it needs women to be more and more miserable, in order to fuel its attempt to destroy Western culture.

And we need to stop that kind of thinking before it is too late.

*A lie that this author was previously seduced by; mea culpa.

2 Replies to “Power – women, sex – men: how we think”

  1. We could solve this problem easily by state policies which support both – parents staying at home and parents working. Large tax reduction for having children, money given by the state for those who choose to stay at home and state financed kindergarten. This would allow anyone to make their choices as they please. You are always speaking about averages, but these always come with a standard deviation. Why force the most intelligent women into a role where they are bored? The male sphere has a lot of different roles where the female sphere has a single one – cooking, cleaning and raising children. As a scientist I have to admit that I love my physics. Why deny me that?

    1. Hi Alex. Sounds way too statist to me. I agree with fiscal support through taxation and other pro-natalist policies but I strongly disapprove of state funding for kindergartens and crèches. The way to improve future generations is to ensure that they are educated, at home, by their own mothers, not dumped in baby holding cells. We know that the indoctrination of leftist ideology today begins right in these nefarious places and they need to be closed, not supported. Women should not be working in order to fund care of their children by third parties and the state should not be subsidising that choice if they make it. I would far rather see fiscal incentives, either through tax breaks or direct subsidy, towards women in established relationships who have children so that they can stay home and educate them.

      How could any person be bored educating their own children? Young minds \are amazing — who would not want to be amazed by them? It sounds to me as if you have bought into the Marxist-feminist ideology already. And while I have no doubt you can make great contribution in physics, no contribution to society could possibly be greater than the upbringing of future generations.

      There’s nothing to stop women going back into their profession, after taking time off to raise children. The central lie here is that somehow, raising children is demeaning. It is a lie that will have to be corrected and that will take much work, given that our education system is corrupted, from top to bottom, by Marxist-feminist ideology. Frankly I think the entire edifice needs to be torn down, the sooner the better.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.