Why Telling Women "Just Get Married" Is The Most Tone-Deaf Advice There Is

An excellent article by Lyz Lenz was written recently as a rebuttal to that famous viral essay on marriage published in The Cut.  Lenz points out that, contrary to what some believe, marriage is NOT a panacea, nor is it really a way for Women to opt out of capitalism.  And telling Women to "just get married" as the go-to solution is utterly tone-deaf and really misses the mark by a very large margin.

The idea of "traditional" marriage as some sort of a "benevolent protectorate" for Women is really quite ironic, as under patriarchy it (like patriarchy itself) has historically been more like a protection RACKET.  That is literally why the "institution of marriage" was invented in the first place, for men to control Women (and not the other way around, as men often like to claim when they think they are being clever).  And while times have indeed changed, the fact remains that today's "kinder, gentler patriarchy" is still patriarchy, and can still be a trap for Women (even if it can sometimes backfire on men as well, granted).  That is not to say that marriage cannot ever be repurposed by Women for their own benefit, of course.  But the specious notion that it is somehow the end-all-be-all or sine qua non for everyone is woefully outdated and outmoded at best.  

In other words, as Lenz says, "gilded cages are still cages".  And as for it being a means of opting out of capitalism, that is also not possible as long as patriarchy and capitalism remain joined at the hip (as they have been for centuries). 

Anyway, Lenz does a better job explaining it than I ever could, so be sure to read her article. 

Why Do Cold-Blooded Psychopaths Rule Our World? (Updated Re-Post)

By Ajax the Great (Pete Jackson), William Bond, and Rasa Von Werder.

(Originally posted on the Vive La Difference! blog in 2019, which in turn was adapted from an Embodiment of God article from 2014 by Rasa and William)

It seems that these days, and indeed for as long as anyone can remember, psychopaths and sociopaths (the former are born, the latter are made) have long been grossly overrepresented in positions of power.  The higher the echelons of the power hierarchy, the greater prevalence of psychopaths/sociopaths there are.  And it seems to have only gotten that much worse in recent decades in fact, and more global as well.

(Garden-variety psychopath, knife optional)

So why is that?  The answer, it seems, is patriarchy.  The following article from 2014 is a conversation between the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder and great author William Bond, originally published on Rasa's Embodiment of God website. (My interspersed comments, as Ajax the Great, are in red.)

PSYCHOPATH PATRIARCHAL LEADERS by William Bond…..comments Rasa Von Werder….. 4 30 14

If we want to understand why we live in a world of conflict — wars, violence, abuse, poverty and suffering, then we have to go back to basics.  What is undisputed is that men rule our world and have done so for thousands of years.  Male-rule is what feminists call patriarchy – masculine rule – and masculinity (as defined in our present society) is aggression, force, violence and intimidation.

AJAX THE GREAT: Absolutely true indeed.  Truer words were never spoken.

RASA:  LET ME JUST ADD HERE THAT ALL THE STATISTICS – EDUCATIONAL AND EMPLOYMENT WISE, ARE POINTING TO WOMEN RISING, MEN FALLING BEHIND. THE FUTURE IS WOMEN, IT IS MATRIARCHY. HOLD ON, KEEP PRAYING AND BELIEVING, WOMEN WILL RULE THE WORLD, MEN WILL FALL. THEY ARE GOING EXTINCT. THEIR OWN ACTIONS HAVE BROUGHT DEATH UPON THEM.

AJAX SAYS:  Indeed, Women are rising, while men are falling away and falling apart, and have been so for a while now.

RASA SAYS:  THIS BEGS, FOR ME, A NEW DEFINITION OF “MASCULINE.”  I POSIT AS A MASCULINE MAN, FOR INSTANCE, SAINT REV. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.  THERE WAS A REAL MAN, WHO RISKED HIS LIFE TO SAVE OTHERS, AND GAVE HIS LIFE AS JESUS DID.  I READ HIS BOOK “THE STRENGTH TO LOVE,” WHICH WAS ABOUT LOVING THOSE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THEY BOMB YOUR HOUSE.  HE KNEW THE MEANING OF LOVE, HE WAS STRONG.  THAT’S A REAL MAN, OR A REAL WOMAN.  BULLIES ARE NOT REAL MEN, THEY ARE COWARDS, THEY ARE WEAK, CRUEL, AND THEY WILL BE REMOVED AWAY LIKE “THE CHAFF WHICH THE WIND BLOWETH AWAY”.  THEY ARE ALL BLUFF AND BLUSTER, BUT IN ETERNAL LIFE, THEY HAVE NO SUBSTANCE EXCEPT BURNING IN HELL.

AJAX SAYS:  Indeed, bullies have what is now known as "toxic masculinity", which is detrimental to everyone, and they are also cowards.  They are certainly not real men!

We can see this in the way male animals behave in the rutting season.  Every spring animals like bulls, rams and stags fight each other for dominance and access to females.  In these fights the winner takes all, the biggest and strongest males gain access to all females, while the weaker ones get zero.  A successful stag is not only bigger and stronger, but aggressive, ruthless and selfish.  Sharing with other stags is not an option; there can be only one winner who takes everything for himself.

RASA SAYS:  YES, INDEED, GOOD ANALOGY.  HOWEVER, I TAKE NOTE THAT ANIMALS KILL BY THEIR INSTINCT, TAKE HAREMS THROUGH VIOLENCE, BUT THERE IT ENDS.  HUMAN MALES ARE NOT ANIMALISTIC, BUT “SUBHUMAN,” AS THEY NOT ONLY FOLLOW INSTINCTS BUT THEY ARE SENSELESSLY SADISTIC.  ANIMALS DO NOT RAPE TINY ONE DAY OLD BABIES (AND MANY ARE KILLED) OR SMALL INFANTS….THEY DO NOT PLAN MURDER, THEY DO NOT DO “GENOCIDES.”  THEY DO NOT, IN ORDER TO GAIN PLUNDER, WIPE OUT THOUSANDS OR HOPE TO MURDER MILLIONS.  THEY DO NOT USE THEIR MINDS TO CREATE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION SUCH AS ATOM BOMBS, INVENTION OF AIDS PUT SECRETLY INTO VACCINES; THEY DO NOT PLAN TO MICROCHIP MILLIONS AND USE THEM AS SLAVES, THEY DO NOT CREATE CONCENTRATION CAMPS WITH OVENS READY TO EVAPORATE PEOPLE AT 2,500 DEGREES.  THEY DO NOT SKIN OTHER ANIMALS ALIVE TO GET PAID FOR THEIR PELTS.  THEY DO NOT PLAN FRANKENSTEIN CROPS LIKE GMO’S NOR DO THEY PLAN TO MAKE HEALTHY FOODS ILLEGAL.  HUMAN MALES HAVE TAKEN THIS INSTINCT TO THE POINT OF DEMONIC SUCH AS HAS NEVER EXISTED – THAT IS WHY MOTHER GOD IS RENDERING HUMAN MALES EXTINCT.

AJAX SAYS:  Very well-said, Rasa.  Indeed, sub-human or demonic is the best way to describe such evil and sadistic behavior that goes way, way beyond natural instincts.  And even many of those who are not so extreme are still willing to lie, cheat, steal, and even kill for filthy lucre.

We see the same in patriarchal societies.  The vast majority of the wealth and power of any country is possessed by a small minority of people.  Like rutting stags, the winner takes all, while the losers, the poor, get “the crumbs from the rich man’s table”.  Men, also like stags, are violent, because the boundaries of any country are decided by war.  For this reason, all countries have to have a strong military against invasion.

AJAX SAYS:  There are in fact more than enough resources in the world for everyone on this planet to have a decent standard of living, yet poverty and extreme inequality remain.  Why?  Patriarchy features winner-take-all economics, and reverse Robin Hood economics.  Rob from the poor, give to the rich, and torpedo what's left of the middle class until there are only two classes left:  master, and serf.  And plenty of violence and war, which enriches the oligarchs.

In contrast, as the late great Buckminster Fuller once noted, the feminine paradigm of leadership would reject men's outdated, inane, and insane self-fulfilling prophecy that war and scarcity are somehow inevitable.

Until then, mechaninzation is no match for the Machiavellian machinations of the moneyed elites--most of them MEN.

RASA:  IT IS A PATTERN.  UNTIL AND UNLESS WOMEN TAKE OVER COMPLETELY THIS WILL GO ON AS IF BUT HALF THE WORLD IS PATRIARCHAL, THE OTHER HALF HAS TO HAVE ARMIES TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM THEIR VIOLENCE.

AJAX SAYS:  Very true.  Certainly, abolishing the military entirely would be very naive and foolish so long as other countries remain patriarchal and maintain their own militaries.  Though in the USA, we can certainly downsize by cutting our "defense" spending in half and we would still have the strongest fighting force in the world.  Because currently it is not used so much for defense, as it is wars of aggression for plunder and empire, to enrich the psychopathic oligarchs at the top.  See "War Is A Racket" by Major General Smedley Butler, truly a must-read for everyone. 

In any patriarchal society – where men dominate – we have the rule of force, aggression and violence.  If “masculine” people rule our world, then off course it is going to be a brutal where “might is right”. If we want a loving, caring world, then the only way to achieve this is to be ruled by loving and nurturing women.
The abuse of women and children is going to happen because they are smaller and weaker than fully grown men. Men use can use their greater size and strength to get what they want from smaller and weaker people.  The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud hinted at this in his Oedipus complex theory, where the son wants to kill his own father, and possess his mother.  The actual reason for this is probably that the son was being abused by the father and hates him.  He also wants to protect his mother from abuse by the father, but Freud wasn’t allowed to say this.  The tragedy of this is that the son, when he grows up, is likely to treat his own wife and children in exactly the same way.
Freud did write a paper on the physical and sexual abuse children suffered by their fathers and other male relations, but this paper was censored.  To save his career, Freud no longer posited the theories but only hinted at them.  Since then, things have changed with the rise of feminism.  Women are now able to assert themselves and take more control over the children.  As the result, men who beat their wives and physically/sexually abuse their children can now be sent to prison.  As women gained power, children were protected from male abuse.

RASA SAYS:  EXCELLENT POINT.  UNTIL WOMEN ARE EMPOWERED, THEY ARE LIMITED AS TO WHAT THEY CAN DO.  WHEN WOMEN GO TO THE JUDICIAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, IT IS POLITICIZED AGAINST THEM, IN FAVOR OF MEN.  I HAVE BEEN THEIR VICTIM.  WHEN A WOMAN IS RAPED, THEY BLAME THE WOMAN.  WHEN A CHILD IS RAPED, THEY REALLY DON’T CARE.  IF ALL THE MEN WHO RAPE WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE PUT INTO PRISON, PROBABLY HALF OF ALL MALES WOULD BE INCARCERATED.  MALES STICK UP FOR OTHER MALES.  THE MALE POLICE PERSUADE WOMEN TO DROP CHARGES.  MALE DA’S WON’T PROSECUTE CRIMINALS FOR INJURING OR RAPING WOMEN – IT HAPPENED TO ME TWICE.  THIS IS CHANGING, BUT IT STILL EXISTS.  IN MANY COUNTRIES, WOMEN HAVE NO RIGHTS.  THEY ARE SLAVES AND THEY ARE SAVAGED.  LOOK AT THE THEOCRATIC MUSLIM COUNTRIES.
OBVIOUSLY, ALL THE STATISTICS PROVE WOMEN ARE RISING, MEN ARE FALLING.  BUT IT IS THE WESTERN WOMEN THAT ARE RISING, AND THEY WILL HAVE TO PICK UP THE REST OF THE WOMEN IN OPPRESSED COUNTRIES.  IT WILL TAKE TIME.  WE WILL DO IT.

AJAX SAYS:  Indeed, having male leaders in charge of prosecuting male violence against Women and children, is like the fox guarding the henhouse.  The "good ol' boy" network is all too real, as is the victim-blaming mentality.  Things are slowly but surely improving in that regard, with significant declines in rape, domestic violence, and child abuse statistics since the early 1990s, but we still have a very long way to go before we are anywhere close to a truly "civilized" society.  Women really need to take over.  Yesterday.

The more males dominate a country, the more violent it becomes, as women, children and other men suffer violence, rape and abuse. In such a brutal world we end up with psychopaths running everything, as they are the most vicious and brutal.
An example of this would be Saddam Hussein, who ruled Iraq from 1979 to 2003.  He became the leader as being a psychopath and had no qualms about killing or torturing people.  In the eyes of many this made him a strong leader.  In fact, people now claim that the people of Iraq suffer more from violence, since he was deposed by the USA, than while he was in power.  This is because without a strong brutal leader, in this extreme patriarchal county, law and order has broken down.  The whole of history is full of leaders like this, who take power and hold on to it, through violence and brutality.
Unfortunately, psychopaths not only exist in extreme patriarchal countries but in more moderate, democratic countries.  In their book, “Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work”, by Paul Babiak, Ph.D., and Robert Hare, Ph.D.  They point that in business, psychopaths are far more likely to be successful.  The reason is that they have the ‘right’ qualities to succeed in a male dominated world.  To quote. –
“Several abilities – skills, actually – make it difficult to see psychopaths for who they are. First, they are motivated to, and have a talent for, ‘reading people’ and for sizing them up quickly. They identify a person’s likes and dislikes, motives, needs, weak spots, and vulnerabilities… Second, many psychopaths come across as having excellent oral communication skills. In many cases, these skills are more apparent than real because of their readiness to jump right into a conversation without the social inhibitions that hamper most people… Third, they are masters of impression management; their insight into the psyche of others combined with a superficial – but convincing – verbal fluency allows them to change their situation skillfully as it suits the situation and their game plan.”
This doesn’t only apply to businessmen; you only have to look at successful politicians to see the same thing.  A politician in a patriarchal system has to be able to appear on TV and tell lies without any hint of shame or embarrassment.  This means that being a psychopath is a big advantage in patriarchal politics.
Men off course invent all sorts of excuses to justify why we live in a world of injustice and violence.  Patriarchal religions like to blame the Devil for all the harm men do.  The big problem with this idea is that if God has created everything, then he made the Devil as well.  So why would God make a person like the Devil, who opposes him?  Religion also tries to blame women as well, in spite of the fact women are far less violent and far more caring than men.

RASA SAYS:  MY OPINION OF THE DEVIL AND SATAN IS THE ORIGIN IS MEN, IT COMES FROM THEIR PSYCHE, THEIR ID.  THEY HAVE UNLEASHED THE MILLIONS OR BILLIONS OF DEMONS ON THIS PLANET.  IT COMES FROM THEIR LOWER CHAKRAS AND INSTINCTS.  BUT THEY ARE WORSE THAN ANIMALS, THEY ARE SUBHUMAN, AS I ALREADY SAID.  IT IS NOT ALIENS, IT’S HUMAN MEN.  IF IT WAS ALIENS, WOMEN MIGHT BE AFFECTED – BUT THEY ARE NOT.  WHY ONLY MEN?  THE ALIENS ARE THE FALL GUY, THE EXCUSE, THEY ALWAYS HAVE AN EXCUSE.  THEY TRY TO USE ANIMALS AS EXCUSES, THAT WE ARE VIOLENT AS THEY ARE.  BUT OUR CLOSEST COUSINS ARE THE BONOBOS.

AJAX SAYS:  That makes sense.  According to Paul Levy and Jack D. Forbes, it is the "wetiko" mind-virus, the parasite of the mind and cancer of the soul.  Essentially the same thing as Satan and demons.

CONSIDER THAT, WILLIAM BOND.  INDEED THERE ARE BULLS AND STAGS.  BUT OUR GENEOLOGY IS CLOSEST TO BONOBOS.  THEY ARE MATRIARCHAL, THEY ARE HORNY, FRIENDLY, THEY SOLVE ALL CONFLICTS BY TOUCHING AND FEELING.  THE MOTHERS RULE THE FAMILY AND SOCIETY, AND THEY ARE STRONG, AND THEY POSTURE, BUT THERE IS NO WAR.  WHEN MALES INTIMIDATE FEMALES, THEY ARE MOBBED AND PREVENTED BY SEVERAL FEMALES, THEY CANNOT DOMINATE.

AJAX SAYS:  Indeed, "make love, not war" is essentially how the bonobos live.  That, and like the Robin Morgan quote, "sisterhood is powerful".  We can really learn a lot from them.

Science tries to justify men’s selfishness and violence onto “evolution”.  They claim that the violence of male animals is “survival of the fittest”; where the strongest and fittest males get to breed the next generation of animals.  They totally ignore the female’s role in evolution.  The fact is that the mother gives birth and cares for the young, and this is a far more important role in the survival of any species, than what males do.

RASA SAYS:  WHAT A BRILLIANT POINT WILLIAM HAS MADE, THAT EVOLUTION IS NOT JUST ABOUT MEN, AS MEN WANT US TO BELIEVE.  THE BEHAVIOR OF THE FEMALE WITH HER OFFSPRING IS MORE IMPORTANT!

AJAX SAYS:  Brilliant indeed, as usual, William!  You really hit the proverbial nail on the head.  Even Darwin himself was apparently not a Social Darwinist at all.
 
Conspiracy theories try to blame secret societies like the Freemasons, the Illuminati or even alien reptiles for the ills of our world.  The rich tend to blame the poor and the poor blame the rich, but few people will acknowledge the fact that as it is men who are ruling our world, then the problem must be male rulers.

RASA SAYS:  ABSOLUTE LOGIC, ONCE AGAIN, OF WILLIAM BOND.

AJAX SAYS:  BINGO.  Psychopaths/sociopaths are completely ruthless since they have no conscience, and since the patriarchal paradigm rewards ruthlessness and aggression, then psychopaths/sociopaths will be the ones who inevitably rise to the top under male rule.

It must be obvious that any system that puts psychopaths in leadership positions is a bad arrangement.  Yet, this is what patriarchy does all the time.  Men are naturally aggressive and competitive, and this is not a real problem if they are kept under control.  Unfortunately, when men rule our world the most violent, aggressive or devious men end up in positions of power.

RASA SAYS:  SURE, IF WILLIAM BOND OR JESUS CHRIST RULED OUR SOCIETY WE’D HAVE A PEACEFUL AND LOVING WORLD.

AJAX SAYS:  True.  And Ajax the Great as well.

Patriarchy also breeds psychopaths.  It has been discovered that many psychopaths had appalling childhoods.  A case in point would be Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Saddam Hussein – all of whom were beaten mercilessly as children.  Extreme patriarchal cultures encourage this, as they claim that abuse, “toughens up” boys and turns them into ‘real men’.  Certainly turning a man into a psychopath makes him a good soldier, as he can kill without mercy.  A more ordinary man is not such a good soldier, as he has qualms about killing the ‘enemy.’

AJAX SAYS:  So very true, William!  And you can add Pol Pot to that list (by his ruthless teachers) as well.  It seems that "beating the devil out of 'em" is really more like beating the devil INTO 'em, which is what the sinister agenda of the demonic patriarchy really wants to do to turn boys, and thus men, into cannon fodder and "Good Germans" at best, and subhuman demonic zombie killers at worst, to do the bidding of the psychopathic oligarchs at the top. 

RASA SAYS:  GOOD POINT.  BEING BRUTAL AND VIOLENT TOWARD MEN MAKES THEM SO, AND THEREFORE, OUR WORLD ENCOURAGES VIOLENCE THROUGH ALL MEDIA; GLORIFIES IT.  THEY HAVE EXCUSES FOR THIS AS “ENTERTAINMENT,” AND “FREEDOM OF SPEECH,” BUT IT’S MORE THAN THAT.  THEY WANT TO BREED DEMONS – MEN WITH NO FEELINGS WHO KILL WITHOUT MERCY.

If we do not want to be ruled by psychopaths then the obvious solution is for women to rule our world.    It is known that psychopaths can be created by extreme abuse, and in a patriarchal society where women are physically smaller and weaker than the average male, they are far more likely to suffer abuse of all kinds.  Yet, in-spite of this, there are still far less female psychopaths then male.

RASA SAYS:  ANOTHER GOOD POINT THAT I FIRST HEARD FROM WILLIAM BOND.  THE SAME ABUSE/VIOLENCE ON WOMEN DOES NOT ENGENDER THE SAME REACTION FROM WOMEN AS IT DOES MEN.  IT’S THE DIFFERENCE IN THE BRAIN, THE INSTINCT.  WOMEN HAVE A STRONGER INSTINCT TO GIVE LIFE, MEN LESS SO; THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE PROTECTORS SO THEY HAVE MORE VIOLENT TENDENCIES; BUT THESE MUST BE TEMPERED AND GUIDED RIGHTLY, NOT RUN AMUCK.

AJAX SAYS:  I am not sure how much of this is nature versus nurture, but I would hazard a guess that it is a mixture of both.  Genetics loads the gun, environment pulls the trigger.

So it makes sense for us to be ruled by caring and nurturing females rather than aggressive males.  We can see all over the world the more women are oppressed the more violent societies become.  But in countries where women are empowered society is peaceful.  When women are powerful, everyone benefits – bear in mind how brutal men are to other males.  Abusive fathers appear in elite families as well as poor – men such as Stalin, Hitler and Saddam were brutalized.
The only way to overcome all these problems is to have women take over.  It is true, there are caring men, but the psychos rise to the top — What psychopaths do is take acting lessons in how to appear loving and caring, then they are elected.

AJAX SAYS:  So true.  For thousands of years, the "good guys" have proven wholly incapable of defeating the bad guys on their own.  If us fellas could do it, we would have already done it long ago.  Even when a particularly notorious mass-murdering genocidal dictator like Hitler was defeated, that was achieved with the help of another, equally evil dictator, Stalin, who only gained strength afterwards and subsequently turned against the Allies after we no longer had a common enemy in the Nazis.  Only Women can truly defeat all of the bad guys for good.

RASA SAYS:  YOU CAN SEE LIARS ON TOP OF ALL GOVERNMENTS PRETENDING TO BE HELPING PEOPLE, AND THE PEOPLE BELIEVE THEIR LIES.  IT HAS HAPPENED NUMEROUS TIMES IN HISTORIES.  TAKE KIND HEROD TELLING THE MAGI TO LET HIM KNOW WHERE JESUS IS BORN SO HE TOO, CAN GO WORSHIP HIM.  THEN HEROD SENDS OUT HIS SOLDIERS TO KILL ALL THE BOYS UNDER THE AGE OF TWO.  HE EVEN DUPED THE WOMEN TO BRING THE CHILDREN TO HIS HEADQUARTERS SO THEY COULD BE FETED – THEY BROUGHT THEM ALL DECKED OUT IN GARLANDS OF FLOWERS, WHERE THE SOLDIERS STABBED AND SPEARED THEM TO DEATH.  AND WHAT HAPPENED TO HEROD AND ALL THESE MALE LEADERS WHO KILL SO MANY PEOPLE?  THEY GET WHAT THEY DESERVE EVENTUALLY BUT USUALLY ON EARTH, THEY, LIKE THE GODFATHER, DIE OF OLD AGE.  BUT THE INNOCENT ARE KILLED.  SO MUCH FOR JUSTICE ON EARTH, CERTAINLY DOESN’T EXIST IN A PATRIARCHAL WORLD.

AJAX SAYS:  They give with one hand, and they take with the other.  And they take plenty of lives in the process.

Yes, there are ruthless and deceiving women as well, but not in the same numbers as men.  Women have a powerful maternal instinct and once this instinct is activated then she not only wants to love and care for children of her own, she has the same desire to care for other people’s children, to look after the sick, old people and animals.  If we look at violence, we find that men commit over 99% of all acts of violence.  The reason is that because as women bring life to our world and want to nurture it, so it is harder for women to be cruel and uncaring for others than with men.
The competitive and aggressive instincts of men make them totally unsuitable to rule our world; they instigate conflict, war and injustice.  The maternal/ nurturing instincts of women enable them to run the family and the world – A world ruled by women would be fair, loving and caring.
by William Bond…..comments Rasa Von Werder….. 4 30 14

RASA SAYS:  LET ME JUST ADD HERE THAT ALL THE STATISTICS – EDUCATIONAL AND EMPLOYMENT WISE, ARE POINTING TO WOMEN RISING, MEN FALLING BEHIND.  THE FUTURE IS WOMEN, IT IS MATRIARCHY.  HOLD ON, KEEP PRAYING AND BELIEVING, WOMEN WILL RULE THE WORLD, MEN WILL FALL.  THEY ARE GOING EXTINCT.  THEIR OWN ACTIONS HAVE BROUGHT DEATH UPON THEM.

FINAL THOUGHTS:  Can I get an AMEN?  So very true indeed.  We are all ruled by an oligarchy of a few hundred to a few thousand cold-blooded psychopaths and sociopaths at the top.  And that is the logical conclusion of patriarchy, basically.  Worse, even if they are deposed, these evil villainaire rulers will ultimately return if we don't stamp out the conditions that cause such evil to rise to power in the first place.  Thus the better half of humanity, Women, must rise up and take over once and for all, Goddess willing.  Only then will there ever be true peace on Earth.

What better time than now?

2024 UPDATE:  It was recently revealed in a new study that the prevalence of Female psychopaths and sociopaths is likely significantly greater than previously estimated, likely because they often use different tactics compared to male ones, and because other people's cognitive biases don't always easily register their behavior as such.  That said, unlike patriarchy, there is truly ZERO evidence that Matriarchal societies systematically incentivize psychopathy/sociopathy in any way, and in fact they strongly disincentivize psychopaths and sociopaths from rising to the top.  In fact, the very best way to defang, neutralize, and ultimately prevent such evil people, regardless of gender, from doing so is Female Empowerment in general, hands down.  It is really only when Women in general are disempowered, that the psychopaths (of either gender) inevitably fill the resulting power vaccum sooner or later.

Should Child Support Laws Be Eventually Phased Out?

First, I should note that I do NOT approve of actual deadbeat dads under the current system.  They are literally welchers of the worst kind, and I cannot stand welchers of any kind.  To any fellas reading this, I strongly advise you NOT to have any unprotected PIV intercourse at all unless you either 1) had a vasectomy, and/or 2) can afford to set aside the quarter-million dollars or so per child to raise such children with at least a halfway decent standard of living from birth to age 18 (or an even higher age in some states for child support obligations).  And that doesn't even include college or the possibility (nay, probability) of massive medical bills in the USA.  Sorry fellas, but the truth hurts.  Under the current imperfect system, if you want to play, you may very well have to PAY.  And if you don't pay, well, then you get to face the modern-day version of debt peonage or debtor's prison.  You can thank the patriarchy for backfiring on you per the law of karma.  Also don't forget to thank neoliberalism (including the hypocritical President Slick Willie in the 1990s, one of the biggest rakes and cads in modern history) as well for essentially gutting what passed for a social safety net, and thus for "hunting you down and making you pay" in return.

In other words, fellas, discipline yourself to say, "no glove, no love" as a matter of course, lest you play a risky game of Russian Roulette both physically and financially. 

That said, as we make the rocky and often nonlinear transition towards a Matriarchal society, a very vexing question will inevitably come up.  What to do about child support laws?  Should the very concept be phased out?  Many men will reflexively say, "Hell Yeah!", while many Women would say, "Hell NO!", or at the very least, have an abundance of caution about the overall idea.  On social media, for example, I have even encountered some Women here and there who say they want to create a world where no one knows or cares who the father is, yet somehow still want to force men to pay for it all.  I guess they want a rule of "joint and several liability" or "deep pocket rule", of all of the potential fathers for all children, not unlike what Lenin briefly had in the USSR during their ill-fated first attempt at a "sexual revolution" in the late 1910s and early 1920s, that is, before Stalin did an about-face and abruptly reversed it after the orphanages became (paradoxically) packed to the brim with unwanted children.  Yes, that was before modern birth control and paternity testing, of course, but it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how that sort of policy probably would NOT end very well at all under late-stage capitalism today either.  That circle simply does NOT square at all.

Meanwhile, many right-wing reactionaries (including so-called "reactionary feminists"), believe that the more obligations people have in general, the better, because reasons.  Even if some tacitly believe that Women should have all the rights but men should have all of the obligations, or vice-versa.  That circle doesn't really square either.

Yet in actual Matriarchal societies, past and present, such as the Mosuo, we know that men generally have no real liability for their own (putative) children at all.  Why?  Not only due to the traditional lack of paternity certainty (at least before the advent of modern birth control and paternity testing), but also because the Women do NOT want themselves or their children be tethered to or dependent on the men, for obvious reasons, as that is a major conflict of interest.  Whoever pays the piper calls the tune, and with men's shekels come the shackles.  And men, as a rule, in every society patriarchal or Matriarchal or anything in between, have always been the lazier gender overall, and often seem to be congenitally allergic to responsibility.  Sure there are exceptions, but those exceptions really only prove the rule.  If Women are going to inevitably carry the bulk of the "mental load" regardless, to say nothing of the physical load too, they might as well be fully in charge as well. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, and heavy is the head that wears the crown.

In other words, it is understood that with power comes responsibility, and thus men would have both less power and less responsibility relative to Women under Matriarchy, particularly in regards to children.  That makes sense, as it's a trade-off.  Women would also be the richer gender as well, and children would ultimately be raised (more or less) collectively by the "village".  And to paraphrase the philosopher Iris Murdoch (in a different context), one cannot simply go on indefinitely living off of the interest of a capital that one has long since rejected, at least not for very long.

(Perhaps that is one somewhat esoteric reason why, contrary to popular opinion, even Feminists have long been divided on the issue of child support laws and reform.  Any Feminist Women who do support reform (despite it being a very hot-button, "third rail" issue), however, generally use equality-based arguments to openly make their case, though.)

And yet, abruptly ending all child support obligations right now (especially in the USA) would be nothing short of catastrophic, leaving millions of Women and children high and dry, while rakish men get to laugh all the way to the bank.  So that is clearly a no-go, hands down.  Especially in a world where Women's hard-won reproductive rights are currently on the chopping block as we speak.  

The fellas can't have it both ways, of course. If Women are to be treated as brood mares, then it logically follows that men would be....WORK HORSES.  And we must all say "NEIGH" to both of those "traditional" and dehumanizing gender roles.

Long story short, in the long run, I do support gradually phasing out the child support laws, for children born at some point in the future, but we must be very careful NOT put the cart before the horse.  Before we even begin to do so, we must do ALL of the following first, at a minimum:

• Fully codify and guarantee Women's reproductive rights in federal law.
• Birth control and abortion access must be readily available to all on demand.
• Universal Basic Income (UBI) for all, aka Social Security For All, with NO strings attached.  Goodbye poverty!
• At the very least, we must have some flavor of UBI for children, similar to what we very briefly had in the USA with the expanded child tax credit.  We could even call it "collective child support".
• Universal, single-payer Medicare For All.  Goodbye massive medical bills!
• Generous paid family leave for both genders.
• Free or subsidized high-quality childcare for all who want it.
• "Baby bonds" to make every baby a trust-fund baby and build generational wealth.
• Free college and/or trade school for all who want it.
• As long as other social welfare and safety net programs like TANF still exist, remove the perverse requirement for single Mothers to name the father in order to receive benefits (you can thank Slick Willie for that one). 
• And so on.  In other words, the genuine progressive wish list, funded collectively via progressive taxation, Georgist-style taxation, financial transaction taxes, Pigouvian taxes, vice taxes, and/or money creation.

After that, the first phase of the phaseout would be to allow men to get a so-called "paper abortion" early on before birth of the child, wherein they irrevocably sign away all parental rights and responsibilities.  Even before that, one can nibble around the edges a bit and start with ending all existing child support requirements at age 18 (albeit with a grandfather clause, of course) and not a day later, and also categorically exempt all vasectomized men from child support going forward as well.  Then, gradually phase it all out organically from there.  Eventually, it will simply become the norm to put "father unknown" on birth certificates by default.

(And repeal the Bradley Amendment too.)

"But men will behave even more like cads then!", some Women may object.  Well, I've got news for you:  men have been doing that since before Jehovah had Witnesses, lol.  That is, they have their own personal Jehovah between their legs, and their balls are the Witnesses, lol.  And it is only a fairly recently innovation that men ever had any real "skin in the game", legally speaking. One can, in fact, draw a straight line between men's newfound "skin in the game" on the one hand, and their more recent aversion to procreation, commitment-phobia, work-shyness, and overall penchant for Peter Pan-style perpetual adolescence on the other.  Men have always been stuck in perpetual adolescence, of course, and it simply went from subtle to overt, in other words.

Thus, the answer to the question is ultimately yes, but a VERY, VERY qualified yes.  In the long run, phasing out these rigid and increasingly outmoded 20th century policies is a truly necessary step (though by no means sufficient by itself!) on the way to finally extricating Women and children from the age-old quagmire of patriarchy for good, God willing. 

P.S.  Men are NOT the only ones who are forced to pay child support, by the way.  Women often have those very same laws weaponized against them as well, particularly when crooked Family Court judges perversely grant abusive men full custody of their kids.  And the forced payments directly from the alienated Mother to the abuser (!) thus add further insult to injury as it gives the abuser even more power over her and the kids.  Yes, that really still happens frequently even to this day, though the mainstream is deafeningly silent about it:  just Google "Motherless America" to learn more.

UPDATE:  The legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder later remined me that there is also yet another thing that can backfire just as hard on Women if not harder, and that is called PALIMONY.  It's basically like alimony but for those who had lived together without being officially married, typically if lived together for eight of more years per common law (but that varies by jurisdiction).  It is nuanced, to be sure, but that needs to phased out even sooner IMHO, with the aforementioned safeguards in place, of course.

OK Ladies, Do You REALLY Want To Know How To Control Men? Here Are The Cheat Codes

One of the most vexing questions facing Women in both the Feminist and Matriarchy movements is, how to keep men from taking over once again when they are no longer in power?  The prevailing view that men are inherently dangerous and always will be, and thus will need to be controlled somehow or else they will inevitably run amuck, is not one that can simply be handwaved or wished away.  The problem has a name, and its name is MUTINY.  So how do you do it?  Psychology has an answer.

Here are the three, albeit very counterintuitive, "cheat codes":

1.  Men need to THINK that they are free, regardless of whether they actually are.

2.  No taxation without representation. 

3.  Bread and circuses galore.

All three should become very obvious to any serious student of history, and all three need to be maintained in perpetuity in order for it to work.

The first one can be seen throughout recorded history.  It's self-evident and self-explanatory.  Google "they thought they were free" to see the darker side of it, of course.  But that darker side has really only been seen with men in charge, that is, with men using it to control other men along with the Women.  Either way, it works, for good or ill, for better or worse.

In other words, men would need to have JUST enough freedom to think they are free.  And both Women and men would need to be treated as sovereign individuals over their own bodies and minds.  Anything less would be uncivilized. 

The second one has also been seen repeatedly to one degree or another, and not just because it's catchy and it rhymes.  Rather, the LACK of it is what often leads to mutiny, especially when combined with desperation.  From the American Revolution to the French Revolution and so on, it has happened before and will happen again if and when the circumstances are right.  But as long as men think they are being represented, and that they are getting something in return for their tax dollars, they will be willing to pay fairly high taxes, as we see in the Nordic countries (where taxes are very high, are collected simply and relatively painlessly, and they get very robust social welfare states in return, with very little to no poverty).  And even in some indigenous Matriarchal societies past and present, they have men as (puppet figurehead) "chiefs" to give at least the illusory perception of male representation, and they are all hired and fired by the Women elders.  (Hey, as long as men are not in any positions of real power, why not?)

(That said, too many male puppet figurehead "chiefs" or representatives can potentially be a problem simply by sheer strength in numbers, so unless one lives in an indigenous culture that has been doing it for literally centuries or more, having all or most representatives being male has the risk of backfiring.  For everyone else, aim for a majority of representatives being Women.)

Again, for men, perception is everything.  While I once thought it would be a good idea to openly tax men at higher rates than Women, I realize now that would be a much too vulgar display of power that would shatter such a perception.  Best to tax both genders equally, at least for the non-rich, but to distribute the benefits more heavily towards Women, especially Mothers.  Either way, the NET result is effectively the same over the lifecycle.

The third one is so obvious that one may overlook it, but it is true nonetheless.  From most famously in the Roman Empire in reality to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World in science fiction, one of the most effective and time-tested ways to prevent revolts or mutinies is cheap and readily available entertainment plus some form of dole.  And that only becomes more urgent in an increasingly high-tech and automated society where men become increasingly redundant.  In the 21st century and beyond, that can take the form of Universal Basic Income (UBI) and related ideas, as well as the emerging trend for the many dead and dying shopping malls to be converted primarily to entertainment centers for everyone.  In fact, in the wake of the ongoing "retail apocalypse", any currently successful mall has become at least partially if not largely entertainment-based these days (see The Mall of America in Minnesota, West Edmonton Mall in Alberta, Canada, and even smaller ones like the Palisades Center in West Nyack, New York).

(About that last bit, I recall that the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder had mentioned something like that in The Future of Male-Female Relationships, Part I.)

On a related note, in a world where in the not too distant future, Women become the richer gender, and inheritances eventually become largely (if not entirely) Matrilineal, it will eventually get to the point where the only rich men left will be lottery winners.  So keeping some form of lottery in existence (hopefully with somewhat better odds than currently!) would be a form of noblesse oblige for Women to allow for the increasingly redundant gender, that will keep the fellas somewhat motivated, I guess.

(Who needs a "man tax" when you have the "idiot tax"?  Also known as the lottery.)

Proactively create a society where rebellion is unthinkable, unprofitable, uncool, and impolitic in the first place, and there will be little or no need to reactively put down any kind of revolts or mutinies, in other words.  It will not work on 100% of men, of course, but it will work on at least 80-90% of them, on both a small and a large scale, and those few "mavericks" and rogues who remain impervious to such control would be greatly outnumbered and outgunned, and thus rendered nugatory, God willing. 

This is NOT to say that it should be all carrot and no stick, of course.  Granted, a combination of both to some degree is probably necessary.  But comfort truly is the ultimate cage when you really think about it, hence why the ancient Stoic philosophers had such a strong dislike for staying in their comfort zones. 

In contrast, other half-baked ideas such as Femdom (at least of the popular androcentric variety), bonoboism (or rather, faux-noboism), various forms of lifestylism, etc. simply don't SCALE very well.  In fact, anything that falls into the trap of androcentrism (that is, centering males) as opposed to gynocentrism, is essentially guaranteed to fail in practice. 

Let the planetary healing begin!

UPDATE:  While males clearly do NOT belong at the center of society, one should note that all successful Matriarchal societies past and present (both human and otherwise) are also just as careful not to marginalize males TOO much either, lest they ultimately form their own insular and dangerous subculture (think the equivalent of the "alt-right", neonazis, MAGA, MRA/PUA/MGTOW, tradcons, GamerGate, 4chan, 8chan, and worse), to the utter net detriment of all concerned.  It is a very fine line and a very delicate balancing act.

How To Get Men To "Accept The Unacceptable"

As any student of world history can tell you, the USA and its Allies were once up against an extremely formidable enemy during WWII, one who was even harder to defeat than the formidable Nazis.  That "honor" goes to none other than Imperial Japan, the country that got America into the war in the first place.  They were not only extremely skilled and disciplined fighters by far, but were also most notably extremely stubborn when it came to surrendering.  "Death before dishonor" was so integral to their code of ethics that they would routinely engage in suicide attacks against the Allied forces.  They literally saw the prospect of surrender as worse than death, and thus behaved accordingly.  That was what we were up against in the Land of the Rising Sun.

As powerful as General Hideki Tojo was, the Japanese troops ultimately answered to one and only one man:  Emperor Hirohito.  He was literally regarded as a god, and was obeyed accordingly.  He ultimately turned out to be Imperial Japan's weakest link, however.  Long story short, rightly or wrongly, when the USA had first bombed and napalmed Tokyo, and then nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Emperor was scared straight into surrendering unconditionally to the Allies.  He was thus forced to address the people and admit that he wasn't really divine, and that it was time for Japan to "accept the unacceptable" and surrender to the Allies.  And they listened, for the most part.  (Some Japanese troops didn't want to believe him and continued fighting for a time, but that was a tiny number that was readily quashed.)  In return for Hirohito ordering his troops to surrender, the Allies allowed him to remain as a figurehead "Emperor" in the new constitutional monarchy imposed by the Allies, which he remained until his death and succession by his son, Akihito.

So what can we learn from this?  Will it be possible for Women to finally get men to surrender this way?  That is, would it require a very powerful and charismatic "bro", one who is practically deified, to convince men that it is in their best interest to "accept the unacceptable" and surrender?  And what would it take to get that man to do so?

In a way, one particular man, former President Donald Trump, would have perhaps fit the bill as the Hirohito of American men if he wasn't so narcissistic, unstable, demented, corrupt, and of course frankly misogynistic.  If there was a way to get him to unconditionally surrender to Women, he could have perhaps convinced about 50-60% of men to join him in surrendering, maybe even more.  But even so, that window has long since closed, as the Donald is now discredited and he is nowhere near as popular as he once was.

So who will it be now, if anyone at all?  That is an open question that only Mother God really knows the answer to.

Why We Still 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.  (Note that the "U" itself also stands for "Unconditional", which is VERY important.)  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.  And in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the lockdowns, and their grisly social and economic aftermath, it is more crucial now than ever before, and will be for quite some time as well.  

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.  And it applies a fortiori now in light of the fact that Women got the worst deal of all from the lockdown-induced job losses, the often triple burden for Mothers at home, the gnawing forced isolation from the support system of other Women, and the increased exposure to domestic violence during lockdown.  And they are still continuing (and will continue) to suffer from the aftermath long after the lockdowns are behind us.  Lockdown is patriarchy on crack, basically.
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.  Again, it only applies a fortiori now.
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.  The fact that human beings, unlike literally every other species on Earth, somehow must PAY to merely LIVE on the planet on which they were born is now totally contrived and socially constructed, and is in fact an egregious Crime Against Nature.
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.  The exchange economy of capitialist patriarchy has failed us, and we need to rediscover and re-create the gift economy in its place.  A UBI will make the transition much smoother and more peaceful that it would otherwise be.  (Some ultra-purist radfems may disagree of course, but they are in the minority even among the radical feminist community.)

Perhaps Bucky's other prediction, that Women would take over the world, is a prerequisite for his vision to be fulfilled?   Honestly, it can't happen soon enough!

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.  To quote Buckminster Fuller:

We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.

In fact, one could argue that two of the most toxic, outdated, and specious ideas ever conceived by the patriarchy (aside from the central doctrine of male supremacy itself and the entire "dominator" model, of course) are that "everybody and their mother must work for a living" and that "everybody must procreate."  And both are now literally KILLING this very planet that gives us life.  Thus, on balance, a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all is a good idea regardless.  Again, it's a win-win-win situation for everyone but the oligarchs.  And the only real arguments against it are paternalistic and/or sadistic ones, which really means there are no good arguments against it in a free and civilized society.  

(See also the TSAP's Q&A page, "Why UBI".)

Of course, for UBI to work properly, it would have to be totally unconditional with NO strings attached, period.  The Davos gang's (per)version of same, in contrast, will have plenty of strings attached, and will likely utilize Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) instead of cash, and tied to CCP-style "social credit scoring", and a critical mass of people will fall for it absent any alternative, so we need to beat them to it with a genuine cash UBI with no strings attached BEFORE they do it.  They will NOT own us, and they will NOT be happy!

So what are we waiting for? Let the planetary healing begin!

Why We Still Need A Universal Basic Income Guarantee Yesterday (Updated)

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.  (Note that the "U" itself also stands for "Unconditional", which is VERY important.)  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.  And in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the lockdowns, and their grisly social and economic aftermath, it is more crucial now than ever before, and will be for quite some time as well.  

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.  And it applies a fortiori now in light of the fact that Women got the worst deal of all from the lockdown-induced job losses, the often triple burden for Mothers at home, the gnawing forced isolation from the support system of other Women, and the increased exposure to domestic violence during lockdown.  And they are still continuing (and will continue) to suffer from the aftermath long after the lockdowns are behind us.  Lockdown is patriarchy on crack, basically.
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.  Again, it only applies a fortiori now.
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.  The fact that human beings, unlike literally every other species on Earth, somehow must PAY to merely LIVE on the planet on which they were born is now totally contrived and socially constructed, and is in fact an egregious Crime Against Nature.
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.  The exchange economy of capitialist patriarchy has failed us, and we need to rediscover and re-create the gift economy in its place.  A UBI will make the transition much smoother and more peaceful that it would otherwise be.  (Some ultra-purist radfems may disagree of course, but they are in the minority even among the radical feminist community.)

Perhaps Bucky's other prediction, that Women would take over the world, is a prerequisite for his vision to be fulfilled?   Honestly, it can't happen soon enough!

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.  To quote Buckminster Fuller:

We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.

In fact, one could argue that two of the most toxic, outdated, and specious ideas ever conceived by the patriarchy (aside from the central doctrine of male supremacy itself and the entire "dominator" model, of course) are that "everybody and their mother must work for a living" and that "everybody must procreate."  And both are now literally KILLING this very planet that gives us life.  Thus, on balance, a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all is a good idea regardless.  Again, it's a win-win-win situation for everyone but the oligarchs.  And the only real arguments against it are paternalistic and/or sadistic ones, which really means there are no good arguments against it in a free and civilized society.  

(See also the TSAP's Q&A page, "Why UBI".)

Of course, for UBI to work properly, it would have to be totally unconditional with NO strings attached, period.  The Davos gang's (per)version of same, in contrast, will have plenty of strings attached, and will likely utilize Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) instead of cash, and tied to CCP-style "social credit scoring", and a critical mass of people will fall for it absent any alternative, so we need to beat them to it with a genuine cash UBI with no strings attached BEFORE they do it.  They will NOT own us, and they will NOT be happy!

So what are we waiting for? Let the planetary healing begin!

The Future Is Female--And That Is A Very Good Thing

A recent article by conservative author Mona Charen is titled "The future is female--is that entirely a good thing?" and very predictably her answer is no.  In response to the latest news that men are abandoning higher education in record numbers while Women greatly outnumber them, and have been for a while now, she does not exactly seem to be the biggest fan despite the fact that such a trend bodes well for Women gaining the most leadership positions in the future.  Why?  

In a nutshell, she says:

Some might note this female preeminence and shout hurrah for feminism. But I’d keep the champagne corked, because, let’s face it, women like to marry men who are their equals or superiors in education and income, and if this trend of women vastly outperforming men in education continues, a fair proportion of women are not going to be able to find compatible men.

The article overall has so many fallacies, half-truths, and omissions, that I don't even know where to begin, but that particular passage is the very keystone of it all.  Last I checked, there is no law of nature that says that Women must marry men who earn as much or more than they do, or even that they must get married at all.  That, my friends, is a man-made law of patriarchy, not nature.  As for what follows in the article, using patriarchy to justify patriarchy to justify patriarchy is NOT a sound argument to justify patriarchy.  It is circular reasoning, and she clearly doesn't see the irony.

Same goes for the outmoded notion that "everybody must procreate" also seemingly implied as her argument begins to coast further, without which the later paragraphs of her article would also make zero sense as well even if one were to accept the original aforementioned pseudo-logic.

Are there some very real downsides to so many men abandoning higher education in droves?  Yes there are, mostly economic downsides, and she could have explored those effects better and how best to address them instead of veering dangerously into Phyllis Schlafly territory (who made essentially the same argument a few years ago before she passed away).  Let's face it, the 1950s are gone and are never coming back.  And trying to keep the patriarchy (or an idealized and romanticized version of it) artificially propped up because reasons is an exercise in futility.

The Future Is Female.  And that is a very good thing overall.  And as John Mellencamp and India Arie once famously sang, "if you're not part of the future, then get out of the way!"

(T-shirt can be found here at FEM Apparel)

Women Are Indeed Higher Beings

A recent scientific study on gender difference confirms what we in the Matriarchy movement have already known, and thinkers like Ashley Montagu have discussed over half a century ago:  Women are indeed the better half of humanity.

This study, consisting of behavioral experiments conducted by neuroscientists, find that not only are Women more likely to be generous and men more likely to be selfish, but that there is a neurological explanation for such differences.  To wit, Women's brains tend to reward prosocial (unselfish) behavior where as men's brains tend to reward selfish behavior.  The brain's reward center (the striatum, which releases a hit of dopamine as the reward) was found to differentially activated in that regard in these experiments.  Thus, at a neurological level, Women are essentially rewarded for kindness, while men are rewarded for being jerks.  Gee, who woulda thunk it?

Of course, the perennial "nature versus nurture" question inevitably comes into play here, and the researchers predictably conclude that their findings are more likely due to nurture than nature.  But I believe that it is, at the very least, a bit of both, if not more nature than nurture, as any explanation for the findings that relies entirely on nurture really seems to merely coast toward such a conclusion.

Thus, this study should lend support to the idea that Women are likely much better leaders than men, and that their feminine paradigm of leadership would be superior as well.   And any economy run by Women is likely to eventually tend toward a gift economy rather than an exchange economy like we have now under patriarchy.  Remember, the literal meaning of "community" is "free sharing of gifts" in the original Latin.  So what are we waiting for?  Let the planetary healing begin!

And to all the men reading this:  DO NOT take this study as license to be selfish jerks!  Women's kindness and generosity is NOT a weakness, and it is NOT unlimited, so stop treating it like it is unless you really want to see their dark side (yes, it does exist, and I strongly advise against activating it, ever).  Remember, when Women are happy, the world is happy.  And when they are not, watch out, fellas!

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