Defusing the Ticking Time Bomb Known As Men

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Case for Radical Non-intervention

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

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

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

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

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

Would A Sex Strike Actually Work?

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

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

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

Who's Afraid of an Aging Population?

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

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

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

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

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

What the "Nordic Model" Gets Wrong

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

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

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

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

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

The Power of Sisterhood

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

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

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

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

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

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

In keeping with the overall theme of this article, I would say that slut-shaming and erotophobia in general deserve special consideration in terms of divide-and-conquer.  This erotophobia is basically internalized patriarchy and self-hating misogyny (especially on the right), as well as (especially on the left) a fear that sexual freedom will lead to a "race to the bottom" for Women much like so-called "free trade" and "free enterprise" does for the broader working class. The former can be debunked as effed up on its face, while the latter can be debunked by noting that while men are naturally hard-wired to worship Women, employers are not naturally hard-wired to worship their employees (would that it were true!), so that analogy can only go so far in practice.  Furthermore, the interests of capital and labor have always been opposed and always will be (unless capital and labor become one and the same), while the interests of men and Women are not inherently opposed (and did not become opposed until the advent of patriarchy).  We should in fact be natural allies, but we fellas messed that up big time, and as they say the rest is history.  And regardless, since the so-called "sexual revolution" of the 1960s-1970s, as much of a mixed bag as it were, Women have gained more far more power (relative to men) than they lost as a result of increased sexual freedom overall.   

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

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

Looks Like Hillary Will Win

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

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

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

VIVE LA FEMME!  VIVE LE DIFFERENCE!