The False Choice Between Liberty and Community

Imagine, if you will, the following thought experiment:  You have a choice between two villages in which to live.  In Village A, everything would be decided by consensus and you would have to ask permission for literally everything you do, and you would live to be 80.  In Village B, you can be your own boss, do your own thing, and not have to answer to anybody, but you would die at 50.  Which village would you choose?

If you are like most people, or at least most men, you chose the second one, right?  I know I sure would.  But these deliberately absurd examples are simply caricatures of Matriarchy and (the false promise of) patriarchy, respectively.  And this false choice between liberty and community is most likely how the idea of patriarchy was initially sold to men in the first place.  In reality, the decidedly Faustian promise of "every man a king" only applied to the top 1% of men, while the remaining 99% of both men and Women were serfs (if not outright slaves) to one degree or another.

The truth is, of course, far more nuanced than this overly-simplistic (and intellectually dishonest) thought experiment would imply.  There really is no dilemma at all.  Liberty and community need not be at odds with one another--except, of course, under patriarchy in which everything is a zero-sum game at best.  As Carol Brouillet notes in her essay "The Feminist Perspective", the literal meaning of "community" comes from Latin, meaning "free sharing of gifts".  And that is what life would likely be like with Women in charge overall.  And while macro-level decisions would indeed be made by consensus for the most part, there would really be no need for micromanagement, thus essential individual liberty would not be in any real danger.  We would all be sovereign over our own bodies and minds by default, as there would not be any reason why we wouldn't be.  Food for thought.

In other words, the false choice between liberty and community is just another patriarchal Big Lie that all too many people believe.  In fact, it would have to be in the top five of the list of Big Lies, right up there along with "everybody and their mother must work for a living", "everybody must procreate", "humanity is separate from and above Nature", and especially "men are the superior gender and should thus rule the world".  All of these assumptions are absolutely FALSE, and we must dispense with these at once.  Yesterday.

"No Nation Is Lecherous, Where Sex Is Abundant"

Thomas Jefferson once famously said, "No nation is drunken where wine is cheap".  That quote is often misinterpreted rather literally, as a call for very low or no taxes on alcoholic beverages in general.  And such contextomy also ignores the very next clause of the same sentence in which it is uttered: "...and none sober where the dearness of wine substitutes ardent spirits [i.e. hard liquor] as the common beverage."  Yes, wine was actually more expensive than whiskey in early 19th century America.  Of course, we know now that alcohol is alcohol is alcohol, period, and that reams upon reams of research evidence have proven time and again that, all else being equal, higher alcohol prices (regardless of beverage type) generally lead to fewer alcohol-related deaths, injuires, diseases, crimes, and problems in general, along with less overall consumption of such beverages.  So much so that the new saying nowadays is, "Alcohol is no ordinary commodity".

But what about the "cost" of sex?  Fraught as that issue clearly is, many armchair pundits have indeed attempted to answer that question.  Indeed, one of my previous articles, "What Is the Ideal Sex Ratio", attempted to answer that very question.  As we know, all else being equal, the relative "cost" of sex (from the perspective of men) is inversely proportional to the relative abundance of Women in a given population, due to the laws of supply and demand.  Such an idea formed the basis of the book "Date-onomics" by Jon Birger.  And many research papers have also been written about the various pros and cons of high and low sex ratios, many of which can be browsed from the links on my previous article from several months ago.

My general thesis is that a low sex ratio (i.e. a high number of Women relative to men) is overall the most mutually beneficial for everyone on balance.  And I also tend to argue against any sort of artificial scarcity of sexuality (with the notable exception of a Lysistrata-style sex strike, which is a short-term tactic, not a long-term strategy).  We all saw what happened in the Victorian era, after all.  An entire social movement was spearheaded to make sex as "costly" as possible for both men and Women in spite of there being a surplus of Women.  The result?  Prostitution and human trafficking, including of children, exploded--to the point where a whopping one in twenty Women was involved in prostitution at any given time back then (versus less than one in 300 today).  And the notoriously lecherous Ancient Romans had quite a relative scarcity of Women, need I say more?

That would seem to be saying, "No nation is lecherous, where sex is cheap" (or rather  "abundant", since "cheap" can have a pejorative connotation especially in reference to sex) idea whose sentiment apparently underlies the recent iconoclastic book "Sex at Dawn" by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha.  And the books detractors will predictably, well, detract.  But there is a major nuance that unfortunately gets glossed over by both sides of the debate.  That is, the fundamental difference between male-defined sexuality versus female-defined sexuality is all too often overlooked.

Under patriarchy, male-defined sexuality is the gold standard of sexuality, to the point where most men and even most Women are unaware that there is any alternative.  Most sex, both commercial and non-commercial, follows this paradigm, often unconsciously, to the point where it is downright banal.  Even when completely consensual, the taint of this paradigm is very difficult to remove.  And in an obliquely similar fashion to Jefferson's quote, regardless of the overall "cost" of sex in general, patriarchy has managed to make female-defined sexuality that much more costly (and rare) relative to male-defined sexuality.  And artificial scarcity has a flip side of artificial abundance, a kind that conveniently benefits men at the expense of Women.  From slut-shaming to the virgin-whore dichotomy to sexual violence to victim-blaming to double standards, this evil system has essentially left us all with the worst of all worlds.  A truly negative-sum game.

When Women are truly liberated, both sexually and otherwise, female-defined sexuality will be the norm (and thus abundant), while male-defined sexuality will in turn become scarce (as few Women would want to participate).  And the best thing about it is that the whole toxic and outmoded "commodity model" of sexuality--in which sex is seen as something that men "take" from Women and for which Women must be "gatekeepers" lest their value as human beings be diminished--will be jettisoned under a feminine paradigm of sexuality.  And that is really the only way to resolve the inherent contradictions of Date-onomics.

Thus, one can paraphrase Jefferson yet again as such, and make the case that female-defined sexuality is, in truth, the only antidote to the bane of male-defined sexuality.   So what does female-defined sexuality actually look like in practice?  As a man, I obviously cannot define it--but I know it when I see it.  Let the planetary healing begin!

UPDATE:  I see that the notoriously controversial (and previously debunked) social conservative culture-warrior, Mark Regnerus, is at it yet again with a brand new book, literally titled "Cheap Sex", which is basically Date-onomics on steroids and laced with a certain misogyny that he barely even tries to disguise with what amounts to patronizing and paternalistic "concern" trolling in book form.   And his specious thesis can be readily demolished, as it is in this article by William K. Black.  Jennifer Wright also does a good takedown of Regnerus' thesis from a different angle as well.  Interestingly, even some conservatives also disagree with him.

Should Men Still Have Individual Rights?

(NOTE:  The fellas might just wanna sit down and take a deep breath before reading this article)

I realize that since I began writing this blog a few months ago, I have been treating the question of individual rights for men as a given, when in reality it is far from obvious and thus should not be treated as such.  Rather, us fellas need to take off our blinders of male privilege and examine this issue far more critically and objectively than has generally been the case.  So let's get down to brass tacks:

In previous posts and elsewhere, I have already established why Women should rule both the family and the world (and why men should not), why the feminine paradigm of leadership is far better than the masculine one could ever be, why sexual freedom is a good thing on balance, and why the general concept of individual rights is worth preserving both before and after Women eventually take over.  What I have been taking for granted, consciously and unconsciously, is that men in particular somehow would and should necessarily benefit from all of this under Matriarchy.  And as a man, that is clearly chutzpah and hubris on my part to do so uncritically, given all of the evil that men, both historically and contemporarily, have done to Women, children, animals, and the Earth itself.  Not that the men of the future automatically would or should not benefit from it, but it needs to be justified.  And the onus clearly falls on us fellas to do exactly that.

Having established that Women would and should have individual rights, which practically everyone in the Matriarchy movement (and the broader Feminist movement) would agree with by definition, the question remains whether in fact any of those rights should then be extended to men as well after Women take over.  One classic argument is that the men of the future should not be punished for the sins of their forefathers, but that would only be true for those who were born after patriarchy has been completely eradicated along with the "original sin" of male privilege that men continue to benefit from.  And even if Women took over tomorrow, it would still take several more generations to eradicate all traces of that system, so that argument really doesn't hold water in the meantime.  So there must be another argument given instead.

(NOTE:  Some may give the hackneyed "not all men!" argument, but I will not even dignify that with a response.)


And the best argument in favor of men retaining individual rights is that Women would in fact benefit from such an arrangement as well, more so that if men did not have such rights.  To wit:

• Men would become even more of a burden on Women if they had no rights, and Women would thus be responsible for them.  (Might as well just ditch the man and get a dog instead)
• If men lose their individual rights, that sets a dangerous precedent:  what's to stop more-powerful or older Women from taking rights away from less-powerful or younger Women?
• No one is truly free when others are oppressed.
• Logistically and practically speaking, it is far easier if Women manage everything and men manage themselves.
• It is actually easier for Women to control men via pleasure rather than pain/fear, the opposite of what is the case for how men have historically done to Women.  Think Huxley's Brave New World, not Orwell's 1984.
• The previous point is especially true given the fact that men are hard-wired to worship Women, especially if they had not been brainwashed by the patriarchy.
• Overall, liberty is like love.  The more you give, the more you get.

Now having established that it is in fact mutually beneficial for Women to extend individual rights to men, what about the other big question (that Riane Eisler fails to answer)?  That is, what's to stop men from ever taking over again?  Clearly, there is a risk of "generational forgetting", in which future generations of Women may eventually forget just how dangerous men can be.  I mean, no sane person can deny that men do have a dark side that can be extraordinarily dangerous at times.  We all know what happened last time, about 7000 years ago, and the rest is history.  While being too lenient towards men can clearly increase the odds of men eventually taking over again (leading to men gradually taking more and more power for themselves), remember that so too can being too strict or harsh (leading to mutiny).  The sweet spot to prevent a male counterrevolution is somewhere in the middle, though exactly where may vary.  And fortunately with today's technology (let alone future technology) in the hands of Women, the risk of men ever taking over again will be fairly small overall, so one can perhaps err on the side of liberty.  Happy men who at least feel they are free are, after all, easier for Women to control than disgruntled, alienated, and/or disaffected ones.

Another utilitarian argument:  Take a look at how American vs. European parents deal with teenagers, for example.  American parents are more like "be a parent, not a pal" and "when you permit, you promote" (i.e. the "dominator" model).  European parents are more like "be a mentor, not a tormentor" and "when you permit, you control" (i.e. the "partnership" model).  And guess which group of teens are more likely to run amuck, generally speaking?  Not the Europeans.  Leaving aside the chicken-or-egg question, it makes sense.  And since men have basically been stuck in perpetual adolescence for thousands of years, that is a rather fitting analogy if you ask me.  But of course, freedom only works if individuals are held fully accountable for their actions--the experience of New Zealand is instructive in terms of what happens when they are not.  Men would generally behave much better if they knew they would face swift and certain justice for misbehavior.

The Human Potential Movement believes that we are all still evolving, and that we may indeed be on the verge of a quantum leap in human evolution.  And depriving any demographic group of essential liberty would only serve to thwart that evolution.   That is also true in a Darwinian sense as well.   If self-determination leads to self-termination, as is often the case for the redundant half of humanity, that is basically natural selection in action.  So paternalistic arguments, which are antithetical to a free society, should also be rejected as well.   That leaves pure revenge and sadism as the only remaining reasons to deny individual rights to men--and I have faith that that the better half of humanity would be above all that.

So now for the biggest question of all:  what should the extent of men's individual rights actually be in a Matriarchal society?  Ultimately, that will be up to the Women of the future to decide, but here is what I personally believe.  First and foremost, men should be banned from holding political office or running large corporations, for obvious reasons.  Not that most men get to do that now, so that is really not much of a sacrifice.  Women may decide that certain other professions become off-limits to men as well, but that likely won't be much of a loss either.  Also, in the USA, it may also be wise to ban men from owning/carrying guns (aside from those that would have existed in 1789) while still allowing Women to do so.  That would apply to cops as well.  (In the UK, things would basically remain the same for men while Women would have increased gun rights).  Honestly, a real man doesn't need a gun, and guns only make men that much more dangerous.  Additionally, I believe that, all else being equal, men should pay higher taxes than Women in order to solve the externalities problem and free-rider problem.   (Just about any issue can be solved with Pigouvian taxes and/or subsidies, for the most part).  But aside from those things I mentioned, I see no good reason why men should lose any other individual rights.  Both Women and men should be considered individually sovereign in body and mind, as John Stuart Mill argued in his treatise On Liberty.  And as Thomas Jefferson said, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."

(And yes, I would feel the same way even if I knew I would die tomorrow and be reincarnated as a Woman, in case anyone was wondering.)

In Defense of Sexual Freedom

One issue that has long divided humanity since time immemorial--or more accurately, since the advent of patriarchy about 7000 years ago--has been sexuality in general, especially as regards to Women's sexual freedom or lack thereof.  While patriarchy's rather peculiar restrictions were primarily if not entirely designed by men to control Women, even many self-proclaimed feminists have also had their reservations about removing them.  In the 1970s and 1980s, the "Feminist Sex Wars" were a classic example of such division.  And to this day, there is still much controversy about just how sex-positive feminism ought to be.

Like most of us in the Matriarchy movement, I believe in a sexually free society overall as far as consenting adults of all ages are concerned, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.  Sexual repression has been proven to do more harm than good on balance, and essentially all of patriarchy's archaic and repressive rules about sex were designed to control Women. That was originally done so men could be at least somewhat certain of paternity, as descent was reckoned (and inheritances were passed) through the male bloodline, though with the advent of modern birth control and paternity testing such a reason has basically become obsolete.  Note the double standard of patriarchy in which Women are far more likely to be punished for sexual transgressions, and how men who sleep around are considered "studs" and "legends" while women who do so are considered "sluts" and "whores".  In contrast, Matriarchal societies have historically been far more sexually free in general, since knowledge of paternity was basically a non-issue as descent was reckoned through the female bloodline.  And when Women finally reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world, I believe that our society will become sexually free once again, albeit with some concessions to modern times of course.  In the meantime, we all need to stop slut-shaming Women yesterday.

Unfortunately, though, the biggest slut-shamers these days tend to be female, and these prudish modern-day Pharisees come in all ages, generations, and all political leanings ranging from reich-wing fundies to sex-negative radfems. This erotophobia is basically internalized patriarchy and self-hating misogyny (especially on the right), as well as (especially on the left) a fear that sexual freedom will lead to a "race to the bottom" for Women much like so-called "free trade" and "free enterprise" does for the broader working class. The former can be debunked as effed up on its face, while the latter can be debunked by noting that while men are naturally hard-wired to worship Women, employers are not naturally hard-wired to worship their employees (would that it were true!), so that analogy can only go so far in practice.  Furthermore, the interests of capital and labor have always been opposed and always will be (unless capital and labor become one and the same), while the interests of men and Women are not inherently opposed (and did not become opposed until the advent of patriarchy).   We should in fact be natural allies, but we fellas messed that up big time, and as they say the rest is history.  And regardless, since the so-called "sexual revolution" of the 1960s-1970s, as much of a mixed bag as it were, Women have gained more far more power (relative to men) than they lost as a result of increased sexual freedom overall.  

Additionally, patriarchy's repressive rules against masturbation, homosexuality, and birth control are really a result of the fact that patriarchy is one big Ponzi scheme (and protection racket) that requires very high birth rates to keep it afloat.  Thus, anything that frustrates that goal is deemed "sinful".  Patriarchy considers Women to be the brood mares, while men are the work horses (except for the ruling 1%, of course, who reaps all the benefits).  And in today's overpopulated world, such rules are also obsolete as well.   In Matriarchal societies, on the other hand, overpopulation would never even have occurred in the first place as Women would have complete sexual and reproductive freedom, and thus not have had pregnancies forced upon them by men.  Let that sink in for a moment.

I personally believe that there are two important rules for ethical sexual behavior in general.  The first one is enthusiastic consent (not mere grudging or reluctant "consent") for all parties involved, period.  Otherwise there is a name for it, and it is called RAPE.  The second one is, "whoever has the yoni makes the rules", as the primary goal for the man should be to please the woman rather than merely pleasing himself.  And aside from general ethical principles such as "do not harm others" that also are true for non-sexual matters, those are basically the only rules for sex that we really need, that we may all enjoy mutual benefit and protection.

Speaking of protection, it should also go without saying that in 2016, condoms should generally be considered SOP (standard operating procedure) by default.   The world is on fire, both in terms of the dire consequences of overpopulation as well as some people's STDs these days.  But the point cannot be stressed enough.

For an excellent website for the fellas about sexuality, please check out Guru Rasa von Werder's site "Embodiment of God".  Food for thought indeed.  As Guru Rasa notes, sex is sacred, not sinful.  It's time we started treating it accordingly.