The Man Question

In any intellectually honest discussion of the future of humanity, especially in regards to the inevitability of Women reclaiming their rightful position as the new leaders of the free world, the "Man Question" eventually comes up.  That is, what do we do with all of them after Women eventually take over?

It's no secret that men are quickly becoming the redundant gender.  Thanks to technology, globalization, and the ascendancy of Women, men are becoming less and less necessary as time goes on.  Women are rising while men are falling.  And in the long run, according to geneticist Dr. Bryan Sykes, men are slowly going extinct due to the gradual deterioration of the Y-chromosome with each new generation.  Add to that all the numerous man-made gender-bending chemicals (endocrine disruptors) in our environment and, as Bob Dylan would say, it clearly doesn't take a weatherman to tell you which way the wind is blowing!

And in the past 7000 years or so since us fellas took over, what have we done?  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, the world is on fire, and now we are all paying a heavy price for it.  Men apparently got the bright idea to take over the (known) world piece by piece, by deposing Women 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".

Having established that Women will (and should) eventually take over, the Man Question nonetheless remains.  This is the part of the discussion where men really get uncomfortable if not defensive, for obvious reasons.  We tend to fear that Women will do to us what we did to them, if not much worse still.  And we may even fear that the "Final Solution" to the Man Question will be very similar to that of the Nazis and the Jewish Question, if not even worse still.  We already know that, barring a miracle of miracles, Mother God is gradually making men extinct within roughly the next 125,000 years according to Sykes, or 3000 years from now at the very earliest to 5 million years at the latest according to the predictions of other scientists.  That still leaves millennia between the return of Matriarchy and Mother God's own Final Solution.  In the meantime, to put it bluntly, will men be exterminated, enslaved, or exiled?  Or some combination of the three?  Or (hopefully) none of the above?

1)  It is still too soon to tell exactly what Women will do upon taking over, but I personally doubt that Women would actually want to "play God" and exterminate men themselves, because they are better than that.  Not only are most Women not inclined to do such things, but they will also realize that doing so will likely backfire.  If it did happen, it would require the sort of authoritarian dictatorship that is inherently anathema to the feminine paradigm of leadership, and whoever those dictators are will eventually turn on the majority of Women, in a sort of "patriarchy in drag".  To paraphrase Pastor Niemoller, "First, they came for the men..."  Besides, there will likely be too much "fraternizing with the enemy", if you catch my drift.

2)  As for (non-voluntary) slavery, that is also a concept which is anathema to the feminine paradigm of leadership.  And ethical issues and human rights aside, it also poses some practical problems as well.  What Femdom fans think Matriarchy will be like is nothing like what it actually will be like, as Femdom (as it is typically practiced) is far too androcentric in two ways.  First, Femdom is done primarily for the pleasure of men rather than Women, and secondly, it requires Women to essentially behave like the worst of men, with cruelty, ruthlessness, violence, and torture.  Besides, if Women were to actually OWN men as chattel slaves, or even the somewhat milder concept of in loco parentis, that would mean that Women would become responsible for the needs and welfare of their men and vicariously liable for their actions, much like they would be for a dog or child.  Men will thus become too much of a burden.  Might as well just cut out the middleman and get a dog!  As the saying goes, heavy is the head that wears the crown.

Of course, that only touches on the problems of individual ownership of male slaves.  What about collective ownership?  What about the ones who go unclaimed?  Do they become wards of the state?  Will they eventually be rounded up and put into detention camps, which then become labor camps?  There could be a sign that says "work will set you free", though it sounds so much better in the original German.  And eventually, we would run out of room, and we all know what would happen next.  In other words, TURN ON THE GAS!

(But wait, they didn't really say men should be "exterminated".  No, they said "exiled", right?  Riiiiight.  And I'm the Queen of England.)

3)  So what about exile, then?  Put them all on an island somewhere?  Or perhaps have a gender apartheid society over here?  With men only being allowed to inhabit certain areas?  (We could call them "ghettos", perhaps?) The main problem with that idea, human rights aside, is that when left to their own devices, men will feed off of each other's energy and become their own insular and dangerous subculture, increasing the risk of a coup.  Thus there would have to be some sort of supervision by Women, for the same reason that we have civilian control over the military.  And eventually they will run out of room, and we all know what happens next (see #1 and #2 above).  Exile would thus carry logistical issues that can easily lead to the same problems that the other options pose.

Thus, for both moral and practical reasons, we ought to take all three measures off the table for good.  All three would lead to "reverse patriarchy" and/or "patriarchy in drag" rather than actual Matriarchy.  History has shown that, at least in the long run, nothing good will come from playing God.  Doing so is part of the patriarchal paradigm of "might makes right" and "the ends justify the means".  In contrast, the Matriarchal paradigm would be more akin to what Jesus Christ said, "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me".  Even if you believe that men are lower than animals, notice how that directive still applies to men, a fortiori in fact.

So having established that, what then should be done in the meantime after Women take over?  Ultimately, that will be up to the Women of the future to decide, but we ought to start thinking about it now.  Aside from banning men from running for political office or running large corporations, and perhaps also restricting modern gun ownership for men, I believe that men should still have the same individual civil and human rights that Women would have.  At least insofar as their own bodies and minds are concerned, the individual should be sovereign regardless of gender.  And the onus should be on the powers that be, not the individual, to demonstrate whether one is no longer competent in that regard.  Likewise, rogue males need to be held accountable for their actions as individuals, especially those who harm Women and/or children.

As for how Women will keep men under control within the framework of a free society (and thus keep men from taking over once again), there are a number of ways this can be done without resorting to the grossly unethical means discussed above.  We will need plenty of "bread and circuses" to keep the redundant fellas occupied, namely entertainment of various kinds, as well as a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all.  Additionally, 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.  Last but not least, we can also learn a lot from our cousins, the bonobos.  That goes for both banding together against rogue males, as well as doing away with "compulsory heterosexuality".  As the saying goes, "sisterhood is powerful".

Of course, if Women really wanted to accelerate the process of male extinction in an ethical manner, there are other things they can do as well.  For example, they can pay men to get vasectomies as well as to utilize the emerging new reversible alternatives in the pipeline such as the intra-vas device or Vasalgel.  And men can go and party their way into extinction.  In the meantime, Women can work on perfecting parthenogenesis, or reproducing without men, and they could choose to have only girl babies if they wanted.  Ultimately, it would be up to them.

As for what kind of government Women will create in the future, I believe that Women will make that decision themselves, and have faith that they will make the right one, but if they want my advice I would recommend social democracy, democratic socialism, or something in between to start with.  From there, I would recommend moving towards what Riane Eisler calls the "partnership" model as well as Buckminster Fuller's ideas for the future.  But take over they must.  Otherwise, we are merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

For the record, I would still be making the same arguments even if I knew that I would die tomorrow be reincarnated as a Woman. Because I know that the idea that "let us do evil, that good may come" has a rather nasty habit of backfiring on the doer, regardless of gender.  And ultimately, all of our fates are linked, to one degree or another.

WHAT WOULD A NIGHTMARE SCENARIO LOOK LIKE? 

Some may wonder how, however unlikely, a nightmare scenario would unfold in that regard.  It would not start with death camps and gas chambers for men, nor would it really end there either.

First, democracy would be upended when a tiny group of elitist Women take over and consolidate all power for themselves.  Then, men would be declared a "clear and present danger" to Women and children.  Men would gradually have their citizenship and civil rights revoked, little by little, piece by politically correct piece.  That is, no voting, no owning or inheriting property, no guns, no knives, no weapons of any kind, no driving, no biking, no shopkeeping, no walking out after curfew, no unapproved sexual activity, no being around children, only allowed to live in certain areas, and so on.  Most likely in that order.  Soon they would have to wear electronic monitoring devices. The legal age of majority would also likely be hiked to 21 and then 25 before that, as men (and Women) under that age would be the easiest group to disempower.  Then, after a few highly-publicized pogroms, which the male victims would get blamed for, men would eventually be sent to detention camps, which then become slave labor camps.  And when they eventually run out of room, we all know what happens next:  TURN ON THE GAS!  (Of course, by the time it gets to or anywhere near that point, things would be so horrific that men will most likely be begging to be put in front of a firing squad so they can experience "death with dignity")

But wait, it's not over yet.  You see, it is not possible to kill them all fast enough, so first there will simply be a modest drop in the male population relative to Women.  The resulting shortage of men, as per the laws of supply and demand, will lead men to "play the field" with Women, and not just sexually either.  When men compete over being able to live under the authority of this or that Woman, they will naturally gravitate towards the most lenient and permissive ones in every way.  Women, especially younger ones, would thus undercut each other in terms of leniency to compete for such men, in a market that is essentially a men's market.  Thus, a race to the bottom in terms of Women's control over men.   Can't have that, so the elite Women in charge will now crack down on and punish Women who "fraternize with the enemy", and older Women would then see the need to keep younger Women under the same kind of control that men would be under.  Thus, younger Women would now be in the same boat as men, and (albeit after a very big stack of dead bodies of both genders, of course) then would eventually reunite and overthrow the elite and older Women in charge.  Matriarchy, or more accurately reverse patriarchy, would thus have failed as a social experiment and thus be permanently discredited, having backfired mightily on Women.  QED.

Or we could, you know, simply jettison what Riane Eisler calls the "dominator" model of society, in favor of the "partnership" model, albeit with the caveat that Women would be in charge and have more power than men overall.  But it would be "power within", "power to", and "power with and through" as opposed to "power over", as the latter paradigm would greatly diminish.  And the "commodity model" of sexuality would be also be jettisoned as well, as it will be utterly outmoded and obsolete with with Women in charge.

Women have the power to create paradise on Earth, but they also have just as much power to create hell on Earth as well.  Men, on the other hand, can really only create hell in the long run, even if it may be preceded by an illusion of paradise.  So who do you trust?  And how should men treat Women, knowing this fact?  It would thus really behoove us fellas to clean up our act yesterday!

Let the planetary healing begin!