Why We Need A Universal Basic Income Yesterday

I have repeatedly noted before why any serious proposal for a pragmatic utopia would require some sort of unconditional Universal Basic Income (UBI) Guarantee for all.  At least as long as we still have a monetary system, of course, and it will be quite some time before money can be phased out completely.  To wit:

1. First and foremost, "It's payback time for Women".  Recently, a Woman named Judith Shulevitz wrote an op-ed titled thusly, arguing in favor of a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all.  Her feminist argument for a UBI, which I agree 100% with, was that such a thing would provide long-overdue compensation for Women's unpaid work (i.e. housework and caregiving) that society currently takes for granted and considers a "free resource" for the taking.   As the saying goes, there are two kinds of work that Women do:  underpaid, and unpaid.  While that is true for some men as well, it is overwhelmingly true for Women.  Thus, her argument makes a great deal of sense overall, and I agree.  It is indeed LONG overdue.
2. Men are becoming increasingly redundant in the long run due to technology, globalization, and the overall ascendancy of Women.  When men are no longer artificially propped up, they will fall--and the bigger they are, the harder they fall.  And this will only increase in the near future.  This is a potential ticking time-bomb that must be defused sooner rather than later.  Men become extremely dangerous creatures under either of two conditions:  1) when they have too much power relative to Women, and/or 2) when they are desperate for money.  Ever see the 1996 film Fargo? Indeed, a Universal Basic Income is one of the best ways to tackle the second one.
3. A UBI is far more efficient in theory and practice than much of what currently passes for a social safety net these days, and would have far less bureaucracy.  No means tests, no discrimination, no playing God.  It's simply a basic human right, period.  And it would be far less costly in the long run.
4. As Buckminster Fuller famously noted, there are more than enough resources for everyone to live like a millionaire with today's technology.  And he said this back in the 1970s, mind you.  And the specious notion that everybody and their mother must "work for a living" is not only outdated, but is also seriously classist, ableist, and ageist, and by extension indirectly sexist and racist as well.
5. Poverty is a razor-sharp, double-edged sword, spiritually speaking. Being attached to riches is clearly counter to spirituality, but then again, so is being attached to poverty. Either way, it's the *attachment* that is the problem.  And poverty today is largely if not entirely man-made via artificial scarcity.
6. We would all be better off on balance, spiritually and otherwise, if material poverty were eradicated--and a UBI is the most efficient way to do so. As William Bond (and others) noted, with today's technology that is certainly doable, but for the greed of the oligarchs at the top who control the system. And that in turn is a result of patriarchy, given how men tend to see war and scarcity as inevitable, so they create a self-fulfilling prophecy as a result.
7. With an unconditional UBI instead of means testing or other conditions, gone will be the perverse incentives that exist under the current system that trap too many people in poverty today.
8. Negative liberty and positive liberty are NOT opposites, but rather two sides of the same coin.  Indeed, one cannot be truly free if one is systematically denied the basic necessities of life.  And truly no one is free when others are oppressed in any way.
9. Inequality, at least when it is as extreme as it is today, is profoundly toxic to society and makes the looming problems/crises of climate change and ecological overshoot that much more difficult to solve.  This is over and above the effects of poverty alone.  And a UBI can dramatically reduce both socio-economic inequality as well as absolute material poverty.  (And when funded by an Alaska-style tax on fossil fuels, it can also double as a Steve Stoft or James Hansen-style carbon tax-and-dividend as well.)
10. We consume and waste a ludicrous amount of (mostly fossil-fuel) energy in the so-called "developed" world, and much of that wasteful consumption can be curtailed simply by making it so no one has to "work for a living" unless one really wants to.  Just think of all the energy spent (and commuting to and from) unnecessary work at a job you hate, to buy stuff you don't need, to impress people you don't even like.  A UBI could thus greatly reduce our carbon and overall ecological footprint in the long run.
11. And finally, one should keep in mind that, as Carol Brouillet has noted, the literal and original meaning of the word "community" is "free sharing of gifts".  What we currently have now under patriarchy/kyriarchy is more of a pseudo-community in that regard.   And that needs to change. Yesterday.

In other words, it would be a win-win-win situation for literally everyone but the 0.01% oligarchs at the top.  So why aren't we doing this yesterday?  Because that would make far too much sense.

An Open Letter to Women in Politics (Post-2016)

(Updated for Post-2016 America)

To any Women who are running for office, in office, or considering running for office in the near future:

You have probably noticed that the world is on fire, and has been for quite some time now.   We stand on the verge of World War III as we speak, and our overburdened planet is in grave danger.  We continue to flirt with the prospect of mass extinction (including humans, by the way) in the not-too-distant future, as we continue to cook the planet with reckless abandon.  We know what is causing all of these problems, and we already have the technology and wherewithal to solve them if we really wanted to, yet our current Big Wetiko "leaders" refuse to solve such problems because they are sycophantic lackeys to the parasitic elites, if not the very same elites themselves.  And these plutocrats are hopelesly addicted to "business as usual".

So how did we get here in the first place, exactly?  The answer lies in ancient history, about 7000 years ago or so, when men apparently got the bright idea to take over the (known) world piece by piece, by deposing you from power.  That's right, it was originally Women who were in charge for most of humanity's existence, and us fellas apparently thought we could do a better job as leaders than you ladies did.  Well, history shows us that we were wrong--dead wrong in fact.  Indeed, the best advice that us men can give to Women is "don't be like us", because we f**ked the world up royally. We paved paradise and put up a parking lot, we created a desert and called it "peace".  We have devoured and suffocated our own empire, and now we are all paying a heavy price for it.  That's right--WE did it.  And we're sorry about that--though we can clearly stuff our "sorrys" in a sack!

Oh, and to top it off, us fellas decided to hit America's self-destruct button and vote overwhelmingly for Donald Trump for President in 2016.  Yes, really.  Because apparently we couldn't screw things up enough already.

And now it is time for you to reclaim your rightful position as the new leaders of the free world once again, starting with the USA and eventually spreading from there.  In fact, it is LONG overdue for you to do so.  We cannot apologize enough for handing you such a monumental clusterf**k of a world for you to fix, of course, but we fellas have plenty of faith that you will be able to do so. We know that Women, not men, are the real natural-born leaders, and you can clearly handle power a lot better without it going to your heads than us.  We know that your preferred paradigm of society, what Riane Eisler calls the "partnership" model, is far better than the "dominator" model that we have been practicing for the past 7000 years.  As the saying goes, never send a boy to do a man's job--send a Woman instead.  Truer words were never spoken, and we need you now more than ever before.

The highest and tallest "glass ceiling" in the world--President of the United States--is still waiting to be smashed in 2020, as are plenty of other important political offices as well.  Even though Hillary already did that with the popular vote in 2016, the Rube Goldberg machine known as the Electoral College was systematically rigged against her. We wish all of you the very best of luck.  Now, go forth and make old Buckminster Fuller proud!  Vive la femme!

Sincerely,

Ajax the Great, Party Leader of the TSAP

Men Won This Battle, But Will Ultmately Lose The War

Much to our chagrin, Donald J. Trump won the 2016 election, and will become President on January 20, 2017.  I and so many others thought that Hillary Clinton would have won for sure.  And she did, in fact, win the popular vote.  But unfortunately, Trump won the Electoral College, crossing the finish line of 270 with likely over 300 electoral votes.  As he himself said, the game is "rigged" alright, just not in the way he said.

So how did he manage to pull off such an unlikely victory?  Well the key "swing" states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin were all part of the Rust Belt, and he managed to tap into the frustrations of disaffected white working-class men--nationwide, but especially in those states.  That was literally all it took.  Combining the legitimate grievances of the working class (who have been practically eaten alive by our oligarchy, plutocracy, kleptocracy, and kyriarchy for decades now) with thinly-veiled racism, misogyny, and xenophobia turned out to be a winning formula.  And as we are seeing now, he is already backpedaling on many of the lies he has told to his base.  All of this will eventually backfire on the men who voted for him.

A Trump presidency is clear and present danger to America, and will seem to set the Women's movement back quite a bit at first.  But ultimately Women will prevail, and this should be the ultimate wake-up call NOT to abandon their efforts.

MAN:  You know, honey, we did win practically every single battle for the past 7000 years.

WOMAN:  Yes, I know, dear.  And it's also irrelevant.

Defusing the Ticking Time Bomb Known As Men

As I have noted in at least two previous posts, men are currently in decline and are becoming increasingly redundant.  That trend essentially began in the 1970s when men's real wages, employment rates, and labor-force participation rates all peaked and have since been falling, gradually at first but accelerating recent years.  For a while, only a few pundits (mainly those in the Matriarchy movement and other feminists) have picked up on this erstwhile subtle trend, but now even Larry Summers has noticed it and is growing concerned.  He predicts that by 2050, roughly one-third of men between the ages of 25-54 will be out of work, and even proclaims that "a disaster is looming for American men" as a result.

We can all see the writing on the wall at this point.  Women are rising, while men are falling.  In fact, women have already crossed the Rubicon in terms of education and are well on their way to becoming the richer gender, meanwhile us fellas are falling away and falling apart.  We are being gradually replaced by both women (for higher-skilled jobs) as well as robots/machines/AI (for less-skilled jobs), our wages have been falling, our once-great labor unions have been torpedoed by the powerful men at the top who threw the bottom 80-90% of us under the bus, and we are thus are becoming increasingly redundant as a result.

So what should be done with all of the redundant drone males after Women finally take over?  Ultimately, it will be up to the Women of the future, of course, but now is the time to start discussing the best course of action to take in both the near- and long-term.  Currently, we are witnessing the death of an obsolete system, one that has been kept on life support for many years now, and sooner or later we will have to pull the plug on it.  Continuing to prop up that woefully moribund system in the hopes of propping up men is clearly not a sustainable long-term solution.  And while men are slowly going extinct due to deterioration of the Y-chromosome, that will take thousands of years to occur.  So what to do from now until then?

As for how to defuse the ticking time bomb (think crime, violence, civil disorder, and stuff like that) that rapidly-made-redundant men would bring in the near-term, one should note how there are two circumstances in which men become particularly dangerous creatures: 1) when they have too much power (whether on an absolute basis, like the oligarchs, or relative to Women, like most ordinary men), and 2) when they are desperate for money. (The 1996 movie Fargo illustrates the perils of the latter case.) As men become increasingly redundant and un(der)employed, the first circumstance will gradually decrease while the second one will rapidly increase at least at first. And while this will likely happen before Women take over completely, it is indeed a ticking time bomb.  Thus, if there are only two policies that can be implemented, they should be as follows:

1. A Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all is an idea that is LONG overdue.  This would eliminate or at least take the dangerous edge off of the kind of desperation that male redundancy can bring, and solve many other problems in addition.
2. The Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act, which was passed in 1978 but never fully implemented, should be revisited as a way to guarantee full employment without significantly increasing inflation.  In other words, the government should create a Job Guarantee program.

These two things alone would go a very long way towards reducing such a problem in the near-term.   Other economic ideas include the following:

• Raise the minimum wage to $15/hour in 2016 dollars, and index to inflation from then on.
• Create jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, green energy, and ecological restoration.
• Overhaul the tax code to make it simpler and more progressive, or at the very least remove perverse rewards for corporations offshoring jobs as well as hiding trillions of dollars overseas.
• Improve our education system, and make all public colleges and universities tuition-free.  Do the same for trade schools as well, as plenty of young men would probably benefit more from those.

As for dealing directly with any supposed crime wave that may result, I would recommend that we "get tough on real crime".  There is plenty of room to legalize, decriminalize, or deprioritize the numerous "victimless crimes" that currently exist on the law books, and redirect those resources toward tackling violent and predatory crime, especially violence against Women, children, and animals.  Men need to know that such behavior will not be tolerated and that they will face swift and certain justice for their misdeeds.  Crime that pays is crime that stays.

Failing that, well then I guess the redundant men of the future can go join the circus, lol.  Free the animals and replace them with men--and I am only half-joking about that one.  Clearly we will need to have plenty of "bread and circuses" in the future to keep the drones occupied while they party their way into extinction.

The Case for Radical Non-intervention

The USA and coalition forces have been bombing Daesh/ISIL (which we prefer to call them so as not to inadvertently profane the name of the Goddess) for over two years now. And Russia has been bombing them for about a whole year now.  And yet they still seem to be spreading, even though they are clearly on the losing side in the long run.   After the first few weeks of bombing in August/September 2014, the fight basically became a stalemate which lasted until Russia started their airstrikes in Syria, tipping the balance against Daesh once more.  But the ongoing Syrian civil war unfortunately shows no signs of abating after five and a half years.  And the latest cease-fire has broken down within a week.

The hawks such as Donald Chump have been, unsurprisingly, repeatedly calling for an escalation of this war.   Clearly, we are already fighting fire with gasoline, and those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  In fact, it was our very own own meddling and warmongering that caused Daesh to become a problem in the first place!  First, we invaded and destabilized Iraq in an unnecessary war for oil and empire based on false pretenses, creating a power vacuum when we removed Saddam Hussein.  Then we disbanded their military, leaving thousands of men who were programmed for war with nothing to do and nowhere to go.  Then, we installed a puppet dictator, Nouri al-Maliki, that further divided the already fractured country, alienating the Sunnis and driving them even further towards radicalism.  Then, when faced with the Arab Spring, we armed and funded questionable male "rebels" (who eventually turned traitor) in the hopes of removing Assad from power--kinda like we did with Gaddafi in Libya.  And as they say, the rest was history.  Gee, what did we think would happen?

But here is a better idea--let's NOT give Daesh the "holy war" they so desperately want.  In fact, Tom Englehardt (Tom Dispatch) and Peter van Buren have the best idea of all--quick withdrawal, after getting them where it really hurts by taking out their OIL.  Such targets--wellheads and oil trucks, and makeshift refineries--are not at all hard to find, and are fairly easy to take out from the air.  And put diplomatic and economic pressure on Turkey and other so-called "allies" to stem the flow of Daesh oil as well.  Because oil is their primary source of funding, and removing that will cause them to quickly collapse of their own weight, and when they are seen as a failure then few would want to join them.  And once we take it out, then GTFO and let Daesh fall on their own sword.

I and the TSAP agree with that idea, and we would also like to add to that.  Before withdrawing, we should give every *Woman* over there an AK-47 and tell them to take over their country and mow down anyone who stands in their way. Let Allah sort it out. Problem solved. But of course, the mostly-male powers that be would not be too keen on that idea. After all, they wouldn't want women in THIS country getting any ideas, now would they?  (Of course, I believe that women must take over the world in order to save it, so that wouldn't really be a bad idea)  Honestly, it is certainly a much better idea than arming questionable male "rebels" who end up turning traitor--something that America has learned the hard way.

And lest anyone raise the specter of the Rwanda genocide in 1994 when the issue of radical non-intervention is proposed, allow me to remind the reader that while that was a horrible atrocity to say the least, we should remember what happened afterwards.  After so many men killed each other, the country became 70% female.  And combined with the shock of what had happened, and resolving "never again", the Women there basically took over.  Today, they are the only country with a female majority in parliament, and they are well on their way to becoming a Matriarchy.  As for the ongoing civil war in Congo, which was instigated at least partly as revenge for the Rwanda genocide, the Women there might just wanna take a page from the history of Liberia in terms of how they ended their 14-year civil war over there, Lysistrata-style.  Vive la femme!  Vive le difference!

Would A Sex Strike Actually Work?

What do Liberia, South Sudan, Kenya, Colombia, the Philippines, and Ancient Greece have in common?  All of these societies contain at least one example in their history of Women going on sex strike (i.e. withholding sex from men until their collective demands are met) and typically achieving success as a result, often in a matter of weeks or less.   These actions were generally done to bring an end to otherwise intractable and prolonged wars and violence, most notably the Peloponnesian War in Ancient Greece as noted in the famous play Lysistrata.  In Liberia, a modern-day example, it brought an end to their country's 14-year long civil war and ushered in their first female president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf.

But what about the longest war in history, i.e. the War on Women?  Also known as "patriarchy" to make it sound nicer, this system is currently self-destructing as we speak, but can its demise be accelerated with a sex strike perhaps?  Would Women be able to take over the world more quickly and readily that way?   Pat Ravasio of Buckyworld seems to think so.  While I have long been rather skeptical of the idea myself, after suspending my disbelief I began to realize that this probably would have a chance at working wonders.  As the aformentioned historical examples have shown, men's demand for sex appears to be relatively "inelastic", that is, even a large increase in the "cost" of sex (which by definition would rise significantly during a massive shortage such as a sex strike) would not affect demand very much, at least in the short run.  While men don't have a higher sex drive than Women (if anything, Women have a higher sex drive), for men there is a much greater sense of urgency thanks to all of that testosterone, and thus men will typically "cave" first.  Thus, men would do whatever it takes to end the shortage/strike and regain easier access, including cleaning up their act and meeting the demands of the Women on strike.  (Women often forget just how much power they really have!)  And while the grand scale of the task of ending patriarchy may be more daunting than the historical examples of using sex strikes to end local conflicts, at this point in history it certainly appears to be worth the old college try.  Even with less than 100% participation, if enough Women go on strike (especially the wives of powerful men in high places), the effects would nonetheless be huge.

So the answer to the question is most likely yes.  That said, it usually takes an enormous amount of provocation to get a critical mass of Women on board for something like that, since Women clearly have needs as well.  But given how so many men are lashing out these days as the patriarchy is now in its death throes, it probably won't take all that much more provocation to end up crossing that critical threshold.  Thus, I would not be shocked if The Big One happens within a few years.

Who's Afraid of an Aging Population?

I was recently wondering why so many men, especially the elites, are terrified that our overall population is (gasp!) aging. It is not just because they fear that their economic Ponzi scheme of necrotic growth for the sake of growth will unravel, though that is clearly part of it as well. No, I think that their real fear is that the Crones (i.e. Women over age 50 or so) will have an *unprecedented* level of power due to relative strength in numbers, and thus so will Women in general. That is because Women are living longer than ever before, as well as having fewer kids. And the men are getting scared.  Hence the recent push to whittle away Women's reproductive rights, eventually including most birth control as well.

Ah, you say, but what about the supposedly legitimate economic fears of an aging (and eventually shrinking) population?  Well, a recent study came out that found that such fears are largely overblown.  In fact, moderately low fertility (i.e. between 1.5-2.0 children per woman) and a shrinking population would actually maximize living standards for the general population.  Not to say that an aging population will not pose some challenges, but on balance the benefits would outweigh such drawbacks.  Oh, and by the way, there is that elephant in the room--make that the elephant in the Volkswagen--OVERPOPULATION.  Left unchecked, it will destroy the very planet that gives us life.  While technology can largely solve the foreseeable economic challenges of aging and declining populations, the same cannot really be said of the intractable ecological problems of overpopulation.  And the only ethical way to do this is to voluntarily have fewer children, i.e. well below the "replacement rate" of 2.1 or so.  According to the best evidence, the best way to accomplish this is female empowerment and poverty reduction, since after all, the number one cause of overpopulation is MEN who force, coerce, deceive, and/or brainwash Women into having kids that they otherwise would not have (or much sooner and closer-spaced than otherwise).  Sorry fellas, but the truth hurts.

So what about countries like Japan, Italy, Greece, Spain, etc. with so-called "lowest-low" total fertility rates below 1.5?  Yes, it is likely that they will hit a sort of short-to-medium-term "pothole" on the road to sustainability if they stay below 1.5 for too long.  Their populations' aging and decline will be significantly more rapid than for countries with TFRs between 1.5-2.0, and may be more difficult to adjust to from an economic perspective.  Well, the answer to that, again, is increased female empowerment.  We see that European countries with greater female empowerment and more generous social safety nets for mothers and children tend to have higher fertility than those with less female empowerment and stingier safety nets such as Spain, Italy, and Greece.  Even though all of those countries have TFRs below replacement, Northern and Western Europe are generally around 1.6-2.0 while Southern and Eastern Europe are generally significantly below 1.5 children per woman.  The proof is clearly in the pudding.

Make no mistake, if Women were to take over the world tomorrow, the global TFR would plummet to 1.5 or lower almost overnight.  But it would not stay below 1.5 for very long, as it would gradually rise back up to around 1.5-1.9 where it will remain for at least a generation or two, and eventually rise to around the replacement rate of 2.1 after the population shrinks significantly over time.  And honestly, it can't happen soon enough.  We must leave room for Nature, lest Nature not leave room for us.  We have been warned, decades ago in fact. 

In other words, VIVE LA FEMME!  Let the planetary healing begin!

What the "Nordic Model" Gets Wrong

There has been a lot of controversy lately about the so-called "Nordic Model" of in terms of sex work.  For those who don't know, the Nordic Model refers to the policy in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland (and now Canada and France as well) of decriminalizing the sex workers themselves but criminalizing the buyers.  Having been on the proverbial back-burner for years, the issue has recently been the subject of much political discourse after Amnesty International controversially came out in favor of full decriminalization (for both buyers and sellers) of sex work in 2015.  Two recent op-eds, both of which in favor of the Nordic Model (and thus against Amnesty's new stance), have been written about the policy, one by former President Jimmy Carter and one by author and prostitution survivor Rachel Moran.  And truth be told, both authors make some very good and insightful points that are very difficult to dismiss or ignore outright, especially when looking at international and before-and-after comparisons under various policy changes.

While the Nordic Model is clearly a step-up from the worst-of-both-worlds American Model (i.e. criminalize everyone involved, often going easier on the buyers than the sex workers themselves), one should note that it still leaves an awful lot to be desired.  While it gets some things right, it also gets some things wrong--the biggie being something that practically all sides of the debate also get wrong.  And no, it's not just that it's supposed success has been recently called into question--though that is also true.  Nor is it the idea that it is relatively agency-denying to Women--though that is also true.  Nor is it the idea that the Nordic Model can sometimes hurt those it is supposed to help--though that is also true. Nope, it's something far more fundamental about the nature of sex and sex work--so what is it?

Basically, there is a set of fundamental truths that have always existed and always will:  1) As Guru Rasa von Werder has repeatedly noted, prostitution is but one of many forms of "selling sex"--in fact, the most common form generally goes by the name of "marriage", 2) Sex work has existed even when Women used to rule the world, and will continue after Women reclaim their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world once again, 3) When Women are in charge of the profession, it becomes radically different than it is with men in charge, 4) Beggar-thy-neighbour policies to artificially inflate the relative "cost" of sex for men are notorious for backfiring, 5) There has never been a society in which Women had sexual freedom but men did not.  The reverse has been true, of course, and there have been many societies where both or neither were sexually free, but trying to do the former would not last long since a black market for sex (paid or otherwise) would quickly develop.  That's the grain of truth to the otherwise-bogus "race to the bottom" argument, and 6) Punishing anyone for sex between consenting adults, paid or otherwise, is really a backwards and illiberal idea when you think about it.

True, the sex industry is notorious for great evils, especially human trafficking.  No argument from me there.  But we need to get to the root causes of such evils--and those root causes are (surprise, surprise) capitalism and patriarchy.  From the desperation that Women and children are driven to as a result of such systems, to the fact that men dominate the industry (and world), these are the real issues, and the evils of the industry are simply symptoms of such wholesale and systemic evil.

I personally believe that consenting-adult sex work should be completely decriminalized if not legalized, provided that only Women control it.  Men have utterly ruined the "oldest profession" when they took it over.  Otherwise, contrary to those who oppose it, sex work is not inherently evil or toxic to society.  In fact, it can be quite healing and beneficial to society.  So let the planetary healing begin!

The Power of Sisterhood

While our chimpanzee cousins have been well-known to us modern humans since practically forever, there is also another closely-related species that many people have probably never even heard of:  bonobos.  These apes, who are genetically just as close to us as chimps are, have only been discovered fairly recently.  And to those who know about them, they are famous for two things:  female dominance and free love.

You read that right.  Bonobos, unlike chimps, are female-dominated, and the differences between them and chimps (which are male-dominated) are like day and night.  While chimps are quite violent, aggressive, and hierarchical, bonobos are peaceful, loving, and at least relatively egalitarian.  Bonobos take the phrase "make love, not war" literally, even going so far as to use sex to resolve conflicts.  Female-female sex is particularly common, leading to greater bonding between females apparently. And to the extent that bonobos even have hierarchies, females are clearly in charge, and the older they get, the more powerful they are.  It is very likely that humans started out much more like bonobos than chimps in that regard, and remained as such for the first million or so years of our existence.  But after men took over about 7000 years ago, they started to behave like WORSE than chimps, and as they say the rest is history.  Until Women reclaim their rightful place as the new leaders of the free world, that is.

(Read Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha for more on how early and modern humans have evolved in that regard.)

So how do the female bonobos manage to keep the rogue males at bay despite the fact that the males tend to be bigger and stronger?  (Yes, even bonobos have a few rogue males here and there.)  Well, the answer is rather simple:  the females form coalitions with each other against any males that dare to harass or act aggressively towards them, and they win through strength in numbers.  It's the power of sisterhood, essentially, and it occurs even among unrelated females as well.

Now contrast that to how humans have historically lived under patriarchy.  One thing that the patriarchy has been very, very successful at is turning Women against each other, effectively breaking up any potential sisterhood.  Divide-and-conquer, basically. We saw that during the Burning Times (aka the Women's Holocaust), which was primarily waged by men against Women but also had plenty of Women pointing the finger at each other.  Legend has it that it got so bad that King James of England even had to call a brief moratorium on the "witch trials" due to so many Women attempting to settle personal scores with one another.  And by that point (the 17th century), the sisterhood had basically been destroyed.  Keep in mind that this was all by design, as the real reason why the Burning Times happened was to prevent Women from taking over again.  In the centuries leading up to it, Women were gradually gaining more and more power, and what started as what the history books call the "Peasant Revolts" was actually a long revolution by Women against the patriarchy.  Thus, the Burning Times was basically a counterrevolution in that regard.

Even today, the result of patriarchal brainwashing of Women is still evident, albeit to a somewhat lesser extent. We see it when some Women still think it is okay to slut-shame, body-shame, mom-shame, and/or childfree-shame other Women.  We see it in the perennial "mommy wars" of various sorts on the interwebs and IRL as well.  We see it when some Women think it is okay to pull each other under just to save themselves.  We see it in various forms of "patriarchal bargaining" and "beggar-thy-neighbour" policies.  And while individual Women may indeed benefit from it all, Women as a group end up worse off as a result.

In keeping with the overall theme of this article, I would say that slut-shaming and erotophobia in general deserve special consideration in terms of divide-and-conquer.  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.   

And again, we come back to bonobos once more, from whom we can learn a great deal.  Clearly for them, far from it diminishing female power in a "race to the bottom", sexual freedom actually seems to enhance it.   That makes sense, because any attempt to quash sexual freedom by acting as the veritable OPEC of sex in a (generally futile) attempt to control males would act at cross-purposes with the goal of sisterhood in the long run.  That's not to say that Pat Ravasio's (from Buckyworld) idea of going a global sex strike would be fruitless in the goal of overthrowing the patriarchy.  It would most likely have at least some positive effect even with less than 100% participation.  But that is clearly a short-term solution for taking power, not a long-term solution for maintaining power.  Just like how the working class can't remain on strike forever--eventually the workers have to win and fundamentally change the system so future strikes are unnecessary.

Clearly, the sisterhood needs to be revived if Women are to successfully take over, Goddess willing.

Looks Like Hillary Will Win

With the primaries effectively concluded, it looks like it will now be Hillary versus Trump in the 2016 general election.  While I personally prefer Bernie over Hillary, and thus voted for him in the primaries, Hillary is certainly way better than Chump and I will thus vote for her in November.  Though not quite as progressive as Bernie, and leaves quite a bit to be desired, she is still far less less regressive, reactionary, racist, and hawkish than Chump, and having her at the nuclear button is far less horrifying than him.  People are starting to take a hint that the Donald is really not all he is cracked up to be, and he is crashing and burning in the polls while Hillary is rising.  He literally needs no help from anyone to dig his own grave, as he is doing a great job of that himself. 

Most importantly, as Hillary herself would say, this is about something far bigger than just one election, it is about smashing the highest and tallest glass ceiling in the world.  If she becomes President, it will be a HUGE symbolic victory for the better half of humanity, particularly when running against a (pathetic straw) man who is in many ways the very symbol of the patriarchy.  And the eventual transition to Matriarchy will no doubt be accelerated by such a victory, God willing.  Besides, if Bernie (or Marianne) had eventually become President, the banksters would surely have had him (or her) whacked within the first hundred days in office.  So to the "Bernie or Bust" crowd, let's NOT make the perfect the enemy of the good this time.  Otherwise, we may very well see the lights go out on Broadway (or worse) in 2017 after President Chump (shudder) messes things up.

Remember, the distinguished Guru Rasa von Werder had originally predicted that Hillary would become President in 2008.  Looks like her prediction was off by only eight years, and the gist of it was still correct.

VIVE LA FEMME!  VIVE LE DIFFERENCE!

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.)

Towards A New Social Contract

One of the most vexing issues in political philosophy throughout history has been the idea of the social contract.  This idea, at its most basic and general, is "the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live", to quote the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  Though idea dates back to at least Socrates, the three most prominent schools of thought concerning the modern social contract date back to the so-called Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries:  John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.  Their ideas can best be summarized as follows in the following chart taken from the site 1215.org:

Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau Comparison Grid

	Hobbes	Locke	Rousseau
State of Nature	The state of nature is a state of war.  No morality exists.  Everyone lives in constant fear.  Because of this fear, no one is really free, but, since even the “weakest” could kill the “strongest” men ARE equal.	Men exist in the state of nature in perfect freedom to do what they want.  The state of nature is not necessarily good or bad.  It is chaotic.  So, men do give it up to secure the advantages of civilized society.	Men in a state of nature are free and equal. In a state of nature, men are “Noble Savages”.  Civilization is what corrupted him.
Purpose of Government	To impose law and order to prevent the state of war.	To secure natural rights, namely man’s property and liberty.	To bring people into harmony.  To unite them under the “General Will”.
Representation	Governments are designed to control, not necessarily represent.	Representation ensures that governments are responsive to the people.  Representation is a safeguard against oppression.	Representation is not enough.  Citizens cannot delegate their civic duties.  They must be actively involved.  Rousseau favors a more direct democracy to enact the general will.
Impact on Founders	Governments must be designed to protect the people from themselves.	1.       Governments must be designed to protect the people from the government.  2.       Natural Rights must be secured.	1.       Governments must be responsive and aligned with the general will.  2.       People make a nation, not institutions. 3.       Individual wills are subordinate to the general (collective) will.

Each of the three theories has its own strengths and weaknesses.  For example, Hobbes could be considered too strict and authoritarian compared to the other two, while Locke could be considered too lenient and laissez-faire compared to Hobbes and too individualistic compared to Rousseau, and Rousseau could be considered too collectivistic and impractical compared to the other two.   Each answers certain questions better than the others.  That said, all three had a huge influence on America's Founding Fathers and beyond.

Of course, other thinkers later on have critiqued all three of these theories.  John Rawls, most famously, came up with an alternative theory of justice.  Feminists, such as Carole Pateman and Annette Baier, have noted how androcentric these social contract theories are and criticized this on several grounds:  1)  that such theories really just decide which men get to dominate and control Women and how the "spoils" of the War on Women (i.e. patriarchy) are divvied up, trading one form of patriarchy with another, 2) the nature of the liberal individual, and 3) arguing from the ethics of care, which appears to be absent in such theories.  Riane Eisler would most likely agree with such feminist criticisms.  And other critics have noted that the issues of racism and classism need to be addressed as well.

So where does that leave the Matriarchy movement, exactly?  We clearly need to move towards a new social contract while phasing out the old androcentric and phallocentric paradigms of patriarchy.  Even at their very best, none of three (Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau) really are entirely compatible with Matriarchy.  But personally, I believe that given a choice between those three in the meantime while the new social contract is being fleshed out, we should (albeit very grudgingly) choose Locke primarily, with a bit of Rousseau thrown in for good measure.  Individual rights should still exist after Women eventually take over, in other words.  Like 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 as tempting as it may be to take an overly Hobbesian approach towards men in general, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that doing so would most likely simply lead to "reverse patriarchy" or "patriarchy in drag" as opposed to the fundamentally different paradigm of Matriarchy. 

Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff122589.html

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff122589.html

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.

Happy (Belated) Mother's Day!

First, I would like to wish a Happy (belated) Mother's Day to all of the wonderful Mothers out there.  You are, after all, literally the reason why the human race even exists at all, despite the fact that the work you do is grossly undervalued in so many way by our twisted capitalistic and patriarchal society.  In other words, your beautiful feminine energy is essentially what keeps the rest of us alive.  Thank you.

I would also like to note and lament how, for all the shallow platitudes America likes to throw around about "Mothers and apple pie", we are still a nation that perpetually continues to screw over Mothers and pregnant Women in so many ways.  Recently, Guru Rasa von Werder shared a poignant and in-depth article from Vox with us that illustrates the various ways in which that is true.  This article should be food for thought indeed.  Our patriarchal and capitalistic society clearly has a "cult of motherhood", in which the "ideal" of motherhood is so highly vaunted, worshipped even, but in practice actual Mothers themselves get about as much genuine respect as Rodney Dangerfield.  Both during and after pregnancy, so many Mothers are routinely discriminated against, overworked, underpaid, and even outright criminalized in many cases.  And meanwhile, there is to this day a powerful faction of mostly male politicians that is doing everything in their power to deny Women their right to choose whether or not to get (or stay) pregnant in the first place.  Indeed, the rank hypocrisy of our misogynistic and pharisaical system is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

Meanwhile, old Buckminster Fuller (who, not coincidentally, believed that Women should rule the world) must be spinning in his grave right now.  With today's technology and innovation, there is literally no legitimate reason why we as a society need "everybody and their mother" (literally!) to "work for a living" unless they really wanted to.  There are more than enough resources in the world for everyone on this planet to live like a millionaire, but the greedy oligarchs who control such resources apparently don't want to share.  Combined with the outdated scarcity mentality that men tend to favor (as opposed to the abundance mentality that Women tend to favor), those same oligarchs have also done everything in their power to sabotage any alternatives (i.e. free and renewable energy) to their own evil system that they force upon the rest of us.  So why make them even richer?

Additionally, just as we should "dispense with the absolutely specious notion that everybody needs to earn a living" (in Bucky's words), so too should we jettison the equally specious and outdated idea that everybody must procreate as though it were a civic duty.  Not only does today's technology make much useful human labor redundant, but the world is grossly overpopulated and will only get more so in the coming decades, and despite the abundance of the world's resources we are chewing through them like there is no tomorrow while destroying the planet.   And the main cause of that overpopulation is--wait for it--MEN.  Because they are the ones who, both historically and today, force, coerce, deceive, and/or brainwash Women to have kids that they otherwise would not want or are not yet ready for.  Men like to "get 'em while they're young" and then use them as serial breeding slaves, essentially, and all the euphemisms in the world do not change that fact.   It is really no coincidence that the two most effective (and ethical) ways to reduce overpopulation and excessively high birthrates are 1) female empowerment and 2) poverty reduction, while everything else is a mere sideshow.  Because when Women actually have a free and genuine choice on when or whether or not to reproduce, they usually make the right choices overall.  After all, they are the ones who have the most "skin in the game".  So let the planetary healing begin!

MAMASTE

Happy May Day / Beltane, Everyone!

Today, May 1, is May Day, also known as the Celtic and Neopagan holiday of Beltane.  It has a rather long history and symbolizes many things, but it is most notably a day to honor the Goddess, which includes the Goddess in every Woman.   Elephant Journal describes it rather nicely in their article about the holiday:

Halfway between the Vernal Equinox and the Summer Solstice falls May Day—the original holiday of sex and abundance.  If you’ve ever wondered, as I used to, what the hype was around May Day—as in why I always heard about ‘May Day’ but never seemed to witness anyone actually celebrating, here’s why. It’s deeply rooted in pagan nature and hedonistic sex worship and celebrations. As Christianity spread and the Church extended its reach and control, these pagan and Divine worships of masculine and feminine equality had to be forgotten.  May 1st is Beltane in the Northern Hemisphere, the day we honor nature’s oldest love story.  And we all love a love story.   This is a holiday of union, between man and woman, God and Goddess—a celebration of the divine balance in the union of Divine masculine and feminine. Because once upon a time, the two were honored as sacred parts of the one Divine balance.

Indeed.  And among Neopagans today, Beltane is (usually) primarily about honoring the Divine Feminine, where as Samhain (October 31) is primarily about honoring the Divine Masculine.  Thus, I propose that we shift International Women's Day (currently March 8) to May 1, and shift International Men's Day (November 19, coinciding with World Toilet Day, lol) to November 1.  The latter, of course, should not be seen as a day to celebrate men, but rather as a day of atonement for the evil that men do, and have done for thousands of years now--a sort of all-male equivalent of Yom Kippur to essentially apologize to the Divine Feminine.  

Another holiday I would like to propose is Waterloo Day, on April 30, the day before May Day.  That would symbolize the (hopefully) eventual surrender of men to Women, which I personally predict will occur on April 30, 2030--the end of an error.  Just as that day symbolizes the end of the "darker half" of the year and the beginning of the "lighter half", so too shall it symbolize the end of the 7000 years of darkness known as patriarchy and the beginning of the new earthly paradise known as Matriarchy.  Note too that April 30, 1975 was also when the Vietnam War officially ended, and also in 1945 when a certain little painter from Austria did the world a huge favor by offing himself.  And the song "War Pigs" by Black Sabbath was originally going to be called "Walpurgisnacht", which is another name for May Eve, or April 30.  One idea for how to celebrate Waterloo Day would be for the men to get up on a platform or podium, give a concession speech as though stepping down from power, and have all the Women heckle and throw rotten tomatoes at them. 

So have fun and enjoy the festivities, wherever you are!

Why Men Should Pay Higher Taxes Than Women

With it being Tax Day and all, I figured I should write an article about taxes and gender.  Recently, a Woman named Judith Shulevitz wrote an op-ed titled, "It's Payback Time for Women", arguing in favor of a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all.  Her feminist argument for a UBI, which I agree 100% with, was that such a thing would provide long-overdue compensation for Women's unpaid work (i.e. housework and caregiving) that society currently takes for granted and considers a "free resource" for the taking.   As the saying goes, there are two kinds of work that Women do:  underpaid, and unpaid.  While that is true for some men as well, it is overwhelmingly true for Women.  Thus, her argument makes a great deal of sense overall, and I agree.  It is indeed LONG overdue.

That said, I feel that her proposal doesn't go far enough.  The flip side of her argument is that MEN not only haven't been pulling their weight in that regard, but that they also reap the benefits of Women's work as well.  As Ashley Montagu has noted, men are essentially parasites on the bodies of Women.  Now, I know what you are thinking, fellas.  You are probably feeling extremely uncomfortable (if not defensive) right now, as would anyone who is reminded of how relatively privileged they are.  But deal with it, since denying the truth only makes it worse later.

What I am proposing, and I am by no means the first person to do so, is that in addition to a UBI for everyone (regardless of gender), men also should pay significantly higher taxes than Women.  There, I said it, because somebody's gotta say it.  And while Arthur Pigou himself is probably spinning in his grave right now, such an idea is completely justified by Pigouvian economic reasoning.  To wit, men impose "negative externalities" on Women, while simultaneously receiving "positive externalities" from Women as well.  Quite the energy vampires indeed.

Negative externalities that men overwhelmingly impose on Women include crime, pollution, poverty, resource depletion, anxiety, depression, healthcare costs, unwanted pregnancies, disease, war, and especially violence against Women.  Positive externalities that men benefit from include all the unpaid labor (both productive and reproductive) that makes society and the economy even possible in the first place, and is overwhelmingly (even if not entirely) done by Women.  Therefore, from a Pigouvian perspective, men should indeed pay higher taxes than Women, since men in general are basically free-riders overall, at least on average.  And even in a full-blown Matriarchal society, men would likely still free-ride off of Women to one degree or another, even if not as much as they do under patriarchy.  Though they would more likely be leeching off of Women's wallets rather than their bodies, since Women would be the richer gender under Matriarchy.

So does that mean that men are currently undertaxed?  That depends--relative to what?  Relative to Women, they are, at least on average.  Relative to other men, they may or may not be.  Relative to an objective standard, rich men are undertaxed while poorer men are overtaxed.  It's all relative.  And I personally believe that taxation should be progressive for all genders, with the tax rate graduated and rising with increasing income, as fair taxation should be based on the principle of "equal sacrifice" or "equal utility" while also maximizing on balance the utility for all concerned.  Flat or regressive taxes are inherently unfair from a utilitarian perspective, since they undertax the rich while overtaxing the poor.  And the marginal utility of money clearly decreases with increasing income, as there is some evidence for a "happiness ceiling".  Indeed, I believe that the marginal tax rates should be more steeply progressive than it is now, like it was before Ronnie Raygun, but with NO LOOPHOLES this time.  But regardless of what kind of tax code we have, as long as we have any sort of income tax, men should pay a higher rate than Women, ceteris paribus.   Property taxes, if they are to still exist in the future, should be at a lower rate for any property that is titled exclusively in a Woman's name.  Additionally, for the estate tax (i.e. "death tax"), that should be raised and made highly progressive as well, while exempting any inheritances passed on from mother to daughter.  That would be a fair system.

Of course, it will be entirely up to the Women of the future to decide what the tax code of the future should be.  They may very well decide to tax men and Women equally, or even abolish the monetary system entirely. But us fellas should be willing to agree to pay higher taxes than Women.  Honestly, it's the least we can do.

Finally, An Honest Article About the Decline of (Straight) Marriage in America

Recently, I posted an article on this blog about the real reason why heterosexual marriage is in decline in the USA.  (Spoiler alert:  both liberals and conservatives have it wrong--it is really because men are becoming increasingly redundant, and thus the original economic and socio-political purpose of marriage under patriarchy is becoming increasingly obsolete.)  Turns out, there is another article that is even more brutally honest than mine, titled "Marriage Is Declining Because Men Are Pigs", written by a man, no less.   This self-explanatorily titled article by Kevin Drum at Mother Jones is highly scathing but nonetheless true.  To wit:

Basically, an awful lot of men are—and always have been—volatile and unreliable. They drink, they get abusive, and they do stupid stuff. They're bad with money, they don't help with the kids, and they don't help around the house. They demand subservience. They demand sex. And even on the one dimension they're supposedly good for—being breadwinners—they frequently tend to screw up and get fired.  In other words, marriage has been a bad deal for women pretty much forever. But they've been forced into it by cultural mores and economic imperatives, and that's the only reason it's been nearly universal in the past.  Nothing has changed much about that. It's still a bad deal for an awful lot of women, but cultural mores and economic imperatives have changed, and that means more women can afford to do what's right for themselves and stay unmarried these days.

I know what a lot of guys reading this will say as a stock response:  "Not ALL men!"  And technically, that is true, as there are still plenty of men getting married in 2016.  In fact, among college-educated men and Women, the marriage rates have barely budged since the 1950s.  But for those without a college degree, marriage rates have indeed dropped (and divorce rates rose) dramatically since then.  So what gives?  Here is what Kevin Drum has to say:

But there's one exception to this: the college educated. Well-educated men are fairly reliable; they have good earning power; they generally aren't abusive; and they've been willing—slowly but steadily—to change their habits and help out with kids and housework. For college-educated women, then, marriage is a relatively good deal. For everyone else, not so much.  And that's why marriage is declining among all groups except the college educated. For an awful lot of women, it's just a lousy deal. They're tired of putting up with all the crap they get from men, and so they're opting out. They'll opt back in when men start to pull their own weight. There's no telling when that's going to start happening.

And indeed, truer words have never been spoken.  Of course, this trend isn't entirely the fault of the bottom 80-90% of men who get chewed up and spit out by the oligarchy/plutocracy/kleptocracy/kyriarchy.  Much credit/blame also goes to the men at the top that hollowed out our economy, torpedoed our labor unions, and enriched themselves at the expense of everyone else who got thrown under the bus.  They are, after all, the ones who made college a virtual necessity to be able to earn a living wage (let alone what used to be called a "family wage") in this country these days, while simultaneously outsourcing, offshoring, and automating so many jobs that used to pay such decent wages.  But let's face it--that's karma, fellas.  We tyrannized and  "lorded it over" the better half of humanity (Women) for thousands of years and now we are finally getting our comeuppance.  We basically rigged the system in our favor and artificially propped ourselves up for millennia, and now the props are falling.  So it is no small wonder why so many Women are now choosing to "go it alone" in that regard these days.  Especially since Women are now becoming more educated than men on average, earning more college degrees overall.

And while it's true that increasing female empowerment has also undoubtedly contributed to the relative redundancy of males, as men are no longer being artificially propped up quite the way they once were, that is actually a GOOD thing that we should be celebrating.  Patriarchy is a fundamentally evil and thoroughly corrupt system, and the sooner it ends, the better.  And it is currently self-destructing as we speak, and has been for about half a century now.  As Stephanie Coontz (author of The Way We Never Were and Marriage: A History) has noted, the patriarchal nuclear family model of the 1950s and earlier inherently required a ludicrous amount of violence and coercion to prop it up and keep the "troops" (i.e. women and children) in line.  And when that violence and coercion is reduced or removed, the whole proverbial house of cards inevitably collapses sooner or later.  So good riddance, let's never go back!

Marriage is, after all, a fundamentally patriarchal institution.  At least the monogamous, heterosexual variety that the conservatives just luuurrrrve to idealize, that is.  That's not to say that marriage can't be redefined and repurposed for a Matriarchal society--indeed it has been redefined and repurposed many, many times throughout history--but the outdated idea that everybody must get married and/or have children (or that doing so is the sine qua non of "real adulthood") needs to end yesterday.  Don't get me wrong, I am NOT anti-marriage.  But we as a society nonetheless need to become more tolerant of a wide variety of lifestyles and family types, and reject the obsolete ideas of compulsory heterosexuality and/or marriage.

And soon Women will be taking over, as they have already crossed the Rubicon in that regard.  Since the 1970s, Women have been going "two steps forward, and one step back", while men have been going "one step forward, and two steps back".  The song "Not Meant to Be" by Theory of a Deadman comes to mind.  Honestly, the inevitable death of patriarchy is really quite painless.  It's fighting to keep it alive that is causing so much pain for both Women and men.  And when Women finally do take over, they will remember exactly how they were treated, so it really behooves us fellas to clean up our act yesterday.   Don't say you weren't warned.

In the meantime, fellas, don't be a fool, stay in school.  And if you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.  Not like that actually guarantees success anymore, but it sure can't hurt. Though for a lot of young guys today, perhaps as much as 80% of them, vocational/technical or trade school might actually be a better choice overall than college or university for those who are less academically inclined, with less debt too.  Failing that, I suppose you can always go join the circus, lol.

What Do Ted Turner, Buckminster Fuller, William Bond, William Golding, William Moulton Marston, Michael Winner, Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama, and Nikola Tesla Have In Common?

Along with many other men, all of the aforementioned are famous men who have supported the idea of Women taking over the world.  (Though in Tesla's case, he did so somewhat grudgingly.)  It may seem hard to believe, but some of the biggest supporters of Matriarchy have actually been men!  Here are some quotes:

"I've said for years and I'm really serious about it, I think men should be barred from holding public office for a hundred years.  They have been running the world for the last thousands of years and they've mucked it up something awful.  I built my business surrounding myself with women. I find women more superior to men in business-"

 -- Ted Turner

“The world would be a peaceful place if it were ruled by women”.
“Women were by nature more inclined towards compassion, whereas men tend to feel they have to be “macho”.
“You are basically life-giving, life-affirming. That is what you are naturally when you are unspoilt… Women can actually make society civil”
“Actually it is very straightforward: let women take over.”

-- Archbishop Desmond Tutu

"I think women are foolish to pretend they are equal to men, they are far superior and always have been."

-- William Golding

"World ruled by women would be a better place." "I have a dream. I see a day when politics is feminised, where female values move into the public sphere in a way they haven't quite done yet."

-- Martin Amis

"Men are ridiculous. Women are far better people. Much wiser (not difficult) and with a temperament to deal with life's complexities and men's abrasiveness... So I think it's about time women took over. What they have to put up with is beyond belief. Pathetic, bullying men who throw their weight about (and there's usually a lot of it) in a vain attempt to prove they're superior when, in truth, they know they're not."

-- Michael Winner


"Wonder Woman is psychological propaganda for the new type of woman who should, I believe, rule the world. There isn’t love enough in the male organism to run this planet peacefully. Woman’s body contains twice as many love generating organs and endocrine mechanisms as the male."  

-- William Moulton Marston (creator of Wonder Woman)

"Western women can come to the rescue of the world." “Some people may call me a feminist....But we need more effort to promote basic human values -- human compassion, human affection. And in that respect, females have more sensitivity for others' pain and suffering.”

--  Dalai Lama

"Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition."

-- Timothy Leary

"It is clear to any trained observer, and even to the sociologically untrained, that a new attitude toward sex discrimination has come over the world through the centuries, receiving an abrupt stimulus just before and after the World War.
This struggle of the human female toward sex equality will end in a new sex order, with the female as superior. The modern woman, who anticipates in merely superficial phenomena the advancement of her sex, is but a surface symptom of something deeper and more potent fermenting in the bosom of the race.
It is not in the shallow physical imitation of men that women will assert first their equality and later their superiority, but in the awakening of the intellect of women."

--  Nikola Tesla

"Twenty-first-century man will be preoccupied almost entirely with scientific and poetical research.  Women will convert man's scientific findings into industrial production.  Women will be the undisputed managers of our 60,000-miles-an-hour speeding spaceship Earth in our ever vaster exploration of our universe."

--  Buckminster Fuller

So to all the fellas who have already joined our movement, you are certainly NOT alone in that regard.  You are indeed in very good company!  And to all the fellas who have yet to join our movement, now is the time to get with the program.