Towards A New Social Contract

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

Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau Comparison Grid

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Defense of Sexual Freedom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy (Belated) Mother's Day!

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

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

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

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

MAMASTE

Happy May Day / Beltane, Everyone!

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

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

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

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

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

Why Men Should Pay Higher Taxes Than Women

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 -- Ted Turner

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

-- Archbishop Desmond Tutu

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

-- William Golding

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

-- Martin Amis

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

-- Michael Winner


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

-- William Moulton Marston (creator of Wonder Woman)

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

--  Dalai Lama

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

-- Timothy Leary

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

--  Nikola Tesla

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

--  Buckminster Fuller

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