Neoliberalism: The Religion Of The World, Flesh, And Devil (Updated for 2025)

Neoliberalism. It is a rather obscure-sounding term with a somewhat nebulous meaning.  It's anonymity and vagueness shroud it in mystery.  And yet, it is the very ideology at the root of most, if not all, of the modern world's problems.

So what is it, exactly?

Short answer:  It's basically capitalism on steroids, with all of its vices and essentially none of its virtues.

Long answer:  It is best defined as a dogmatic belief in the inherent superiority and supremacy of unfettered free markets and privatization (and commodification) of nearly every single thing in the Universe, and then some.  Inequality, however extreme, and even greed itself is recast as virtuous (think Gordon Gekko of Wall Street).  The rich and the poor deserve their lot in life, because reasons.  Or something.  Poverty is in fact a feature, not a bug, as the resulting desperation makes people that much easier to exploit via economic coercion.  People are just objects to be used, as are animals and Mother Nature herself.  Citizens are reduced to mere consumers and wage-serfs, if not full-blown slaves.  And like the robber barons of old, today's high priests of neoliberalism are totally fine with robbing from the poor, giving to the rich, and torpedoing what's left of the middle class.  The only difference is that nowadays they typically do it with a smile and a veneer of pseudo-progressivism, while laughing all the way to the bank (often quite literally).

Neoliberalism's warped and twisted code of pseudo-ethics harbors a massive, gaping void that is essentially a moral black hole, since this ideology lacks a truly moral and spiritual component underneath it all.  Its entire foundation is shaky, empty and morally bankrupt, totally rotten to the core.  And yet, it has such mass appeal on both the (pseudo-)left and right of the political spectrum that it transcends that very spectrum.  And while neoliberalism is clearly the darling brainchild of patriarchy, it is such a wily and devious shapeshifter that it even transcends patriarchy itself as well.

From Reagan to the Clintons, Thatcher to Blair to Starmer, Milton Friedman (who first coined the word neoliberalism) to Thomas Friedman, Greenspan to Powell, BP to ExxonMobil, Purdue University to Perdue Chicken to Purdue Pharma, Meta to TikTok, Musk to Zuckerberg, Trump to Trudeau, Bush to Bush, Obama to Biden, and Boris all the way to Natasha, it seems like no mainstream or pseudo-alternative politician, ideologue, technocrat, maven, or tycoon has been able to avoid being infected by neoliberalism to one degree or another, and sucked into its lifeless, soulless abyss.

(Trump, with the notable exception of opposing some of the "free trade" component of neoliberalism, otherwise supports essentially all of the rest of their evil and demonic agenda in practice, his disingenuous rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.  And ALL neoliberals, Trump included, are largely anti-union in practice, if not also in theory as well.)

Though secular in nature, neoliberalism has all of the messianic zeal of a religion, even a fundamentalist one.  And its dogmas have basically become the new orthodoxy from about 1980 onwards.  And we can thus conclude that neoliberalism is essentially the religion of the world, the flesh, and the devil, filling the voids left by the implosion of the mainstream patriarchal religions.  One can even call it a cult as well.

In Christian theology, the "world, flesh, and devil" have traditionally been considered the three primary enemies of the soul, as a sort of "unholy trinity".  Now, I personally believe that there is some nuance to this in that the world is only evil because of who rules it (i.e. the devil who works through men, particularly the oligarchs and their sycophantic lackeys), and the flesh is only evil when we choose to make it that way, since matter is essentially just a slowed-down form of spirit.  Neither of these first two are inherently evil or irredeemable in themselves.  But under the current regime of patriarchy, living exclusively for these two things is believed to ultimately lead to the third member, the devil.  Or wetiko, if you prefer.  Whatever it is, it is pure evil energy that cannot ever be redeemed.  And neoliberalism, in its sheer vileness, vainglory, often gratuitous cruelty, and wanton idolatry of money and worldly power above all else, effectively worships all three members of this unholy trinity.  There is really no denying that at all.

The purveyors of neoliberalism are literally willing to lie, cheat, steal, and even kill for filthy lucre, basically. Nothing redeeming about that.

The rise of selected flavors of Christian (and other religious) fundamentalism since the 1980s has NOT stemmed the tide of neoliberalism, and the two increasingly seem to be joined at the hip nowadays.  And while patriarchy is currently in its death throes as we speak, the implosion of patriarchy and patriarchal religion is clearly non-linear, erratic, and chaotic.

And most notably, the recent rumors of neoliberalism's supposed death from the COVID-19 pandemic have been greatly exaggerated.  And by that, we mean that, if anything, neoliberalism has actually GAINED strength overall from the lockdowns and related restrictions which effectively robbed from the poor, gave to the rich, and torpedoed what was left of the already shrinking middle class.  It was basically the heist of the century, if not the millennium.  And not only did these draconian measures not appreciably save lives in the long run, they actually cost lives, particularly among poorer people and people of color who got the brunt of both the virus itself AND the collateral damage disproportionately shunted onto them while the affluent got to "work from home".  There was certainly nothing genuinely leftist or progressive about doing that!  And the novel experimental gene therapies that self-identify as "vaccines" have been not only a major cash cow for the oligarchs, but also have been (via mandates, "passports", and segregation) an effective weapon of power and control over the masses, especially via divide-and-conquer.  Not to mention, dare I say, a bioweapon as well, given all of the excess deaths, injuries, and disabilities (sorry, "coincidences") that have resulted from these concoctions.

The pandemic is long over, and all restrictions have ended as of 2023 (and most had already ended by early 2022 in any country not named China), but the legacy and precedent still remain to this day.

And, of course, Women have clearly gotten the brief end of the stick from the pandemic response as well.  Lockdowns had increased male-on-female domestic violence and Women had lost more jobs than men have as well.  Meanwhile, the majority of designated "essential" (read: expendable) workers have also been Women as well, especially in healthcare.  And school closures have also forced Mothers to either 1) stay home with the kids and lose income as a result, or else 2) take on a triple burden by trying to juggle it all at once.  It has led to nothing short of a collapse of Women's health and work.  Thus there is clearly nothing even remotely feminist about these toxic and illiberal policies, but rather these are things that neoliberalism salivates over the most.  The Rockefellers and their cronies must be grinning from ear to ear right now as we speak.  And while these pandemic and lockdown-related phenomena are over, there is no denying that it set the Women's movement back decades, and no sooner has the movement only begun to recover, than the right-wing reactionaries and counterrevolutionaries are trying so hard to drag Women back to Margaret Atwood's worst nightmare as we speak.  And that counterrevolution, of course, is also in league with...you guessed it...neoliberalism. 

TO HELL WITH NEOLIBERALISM!

The Meme That Is Worth At LEAST A Thousand Words

Here is a great meme I recently found on Pinterest, that pretty much sums up so much about the age-old paradox between the sexes.  It's a meme that is worth at LEAST a thousand words:

Note that both people pictured are, by definition, attracted to Women.  But they clearly perceive such Women quite differently.  It's like they both know deep in their heart of hearts exactly who the better half of humanity really is, but one is in steadfast denial to the point of "reaction formation" as a defense mechanisms (Freud would have a field day!), while the other is fully honest about it.

Perhaps it's really not so surprising we find studies like this one, showing that Women in general, even those who self-identity as straight, often have "surprisingly" far more "implicit attraction" to other Women than was previously thought.  So fellas, you may wanna learn how to "think like a WLW" if you really wanna improve your chances with Women.  You can start by NOT objectifying them, for example.  Indeed, in other words, think in terms of "I and Thou", not "I and It".

(Mic drop)

The Real Reason Why The Broligarchs Want Higher Birthrates So Much (And Why They Desperately Fear Low Birthrates Like The Plague)

The Broligarchs (Musk, Trump, Vance, and their entourage), and the oligarchs in general, seem to be panicking now about birthrates being too low for their liking.  Trump himself may not be harping on it so much, but the others are.  And they, along with the rest of the GOP are apparently more than willing to revoke women's hard-won reproductive rights in their zeal to raise the numbers.

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 essentially 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.  Another recent study found that there is essentially no robust correlation between population aging and economic growth, contrary to what many people seem to believe.  Not to say that an aging population will not pose some challenges, but on balance the benefits would outweigh such drawbacks.  And our Monetarily Sovereign federal government can easily absorb the fiscal costs of aging such as pensions and healthcare, since the issuer of its own currency by definition has infinite money.

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 (and Monetary Sovereignty) 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.  And the TFR is now below that in the USA, around 1.6 to 1.7.  The recent drop in birthrates is thus actually GOOD news on balance.

But wait, isn't the conspiracy narrative that the oligarchs in general want depopulation?  Well, that may have been true in the past, but now that seems to be more of a "Scooby Doo" narrative (that is, the one that they want us all to "discover").  And in any case, Musk has long called for "more babies", and the Rethuglicans (both MAGA and otherwise) have long been on a self-righteous crusade of sorts to trample and revoke women's reproductive rights.  There seem to be multiple agendas here, but in 2025, they all seem to be coalescing into one overarching agenda:  to prop up the current Ponzi scheme and pyramid scheme that is neoliberal late capitalist patriarchy, by any means necessary.

Enter the iron laws of supply and demand, particularly how they apply to labor.  Low birthrates now, by definition, portend labor shortages in the future, all else being equal.  And we know what happened in the decades following the Black Death:  the period from 1350-1500 was known as the "Golden Age of the European Proletariat" per Sylvia Federici.  Why?  Because after the population plummeted following the plague, there was a massive labor shortage, and the working class had a LOT of bargaining power.  Wages went way up, working hours went down, and working conditions improved as well.  And it sounded the death knell for feudalism.  Of course, the ruling class then did two things in response:  1) the Burning Times (witch trials), which killed off many revolutionaries, as Federici notes in her book Caliban and the Witch, and 2) the enclosures of the commons, thoroughly dispossessing and immiserating the working class.  Both of which combined to pave the way for capitalism, and then imperialism, colonialism, and all that jazz, and as they say, the rest is history.  Jason Hickel discusses the latter in depth in his book, Less Is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World.

Cue the predictable cries of "nobody wants to work anymore!" from the chattering classes.  Sound familiar?  It's really more like, no one wants to be exploited anymore.  And the oligarchs fear that like, well, the plague.  Kings need peasants, after all.

Long story short, the ruling class fears a labor shortage, because that would upend their power, faster than they can automate the "problem" away.  So why are they engaging in mass deportations now, which would cause a labor shortage in the short to medium term?  Well, racism and white nationalism, for starters.  And it also serves as a form of "chaos manufacture", that is, deliberately creating unnecessary chaos in a "shock and awe" campaign to mess with everyone's heads so as to seize more power.

In other words, it's all about power and control to these psychopaths, sociopaths, and malignant narcissists.  The kinds of people that are not even bound by logical consistency, let alone ethics and morals.

All the more reason NOT to give the Broligarchs, and the oligarchs in general, what they want.  Fie upon them!

UPDATE:  Antonio Melonio notably wrote a great article called "The Childfree Are Ungovernable", noting how the capitalist oligarchs have another, related major reason why they want the common people to have as many kids as possible ASAP:  to make us all easier to control as good little serfs.  And that dovetails well with another good article of his:  "Declining Birth Rates Are A Good Thing, Actually".

P.S.  Notice also how they want people, especially women, to start having kids as early in life as possible, particularly before beginning any form of higher education.  Thus, when they start early, then it becomes the path of least resistance to keep having one baby after another, kneecapping women's careers and getting women stuck in a quagmire.  That's a feature, not a bug, of their plan to keep women tied down and tethered to men.  And of course, the Broligarchs/oligarchs are also no friend to the vast majority of men either, as clearly working-class men will be financially on the hook for it all if the oligarchs get their way and then gut all social welfare programs.  Much like Adam's punishment in Genesis, "You will work for every crumb", fellas!  If women are to be brood mares, then men will thus have to be...WORK HORSES.  Patriarchy has a rather nasty habit of backfiring on men as well.

Again, all the more reason NOT to give them what they want.  

Run, it's a trap!

(Mic drop)

ICYMI, Be Sure To Check Out Guru Rasa's Latest Magnum Opus; "The Man Whisperer"

ICYMI, be sure to check out the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder's latest book now published and available on Lulu (as well as on Amazon, etc.): The Man Whisperer:  How an Old Lady Snags Young Men for Sex.  With its self-explanatory title, she chronicles and discusses in depth her experiences as a Cougar in the college town of Binghamton, New York, and shares some very important wisdom and lessons she has learned along the way as well.

Enjoy! 😊

P.S.  Not to toot my own horn, but the book also features a little bit of William Bond and myself as well. 😊

The Misogyny-Misandry Death Spiral

With all that has been going on in the world lately, one common thread seems to be noticeable these days.  Scratch the surface of so many problems, and you will often find some flavor of misogyny lurking under the surface.

First, some definitions:

Misogyny:  hatred and/or hostility towards Women and girls

Misandry:  hatred and/or hostility towards men and boys

Misanthropy:  hatred and/or hostility towards humanity in general, regardless of gender

After the 2024 election in the USA, the 4B Movement (of Women to essentially boycott men) began trending stateside online, though it was already several years old by then in the Republic of Korea (South Korea), its birthplace.  Dig a little deeper into exactly why it originated there, of all countries, and you will see that they actually have a pretty massive and systemic misogyny problem over there.  It's often very subtle of course, and the fellas there always seem so nice and friendly to outside observers from the rest of the world, but beware:  a "kinder, gentler patriarchy" is still a patriarchy.  They are basically a traditional society that has rapidly (and unevenly) modernized, and still has a LOT of old patriarchal baggage to unpack.  And just beneath the surface, it is apparently downright horrifying for so many of the Women of South Korea, so much that so many want nothing to do with men at all if they can help it.  And it really shows most starkly of all in their all-time record low birthrates (lowest in the world currently, with a TFR of as low as 0.80-0.90 children per Woman, less than half the replacement of 2.1) which no amount of pronatalism seems to be able to raise.  

Even their utterly dystopian and Stalinist totalitarian neighbor to the north (the DPRK, or North Korea) somehow manages significantly higher rates of procreation than South Korea these days, so that really says something indeed!

Now zoom out to the world as a whole, particularly on the internet and social media.  Misogyny seems to be reactionary, refractory, and recrudescent in recent years all over the world, with the USA being the most recent ground zero for this ugly trend.  And in very recent years, especially online, you will also notice at least in some circles an equal and opposite reaction (i.e. misandry) per Newton's laws of physics, even though it is not systemic like misogyny is.  But it does appear to unwittingly give ammunition to the latter all the same, unfortunately.  And social media only amplifies both hostilities further, and it ultimately spills over into the offline world as well.  Zoom out even further and look at it on a longer time scale as well, and you will clearly see a vicious cycle and downward spiral occur as follows:

Misogyny begets misandry begets misogyny begets misandry begets misogyny begets misandry begets misogyny begets misandry begets misogyny begets misandry begets misogyny, and so on.

It's enough to turn practically anyone into a full-blown, all-around misanthrope!  At least then, you don't actually have to decide which gender you dislike the most.

This phenomenon is what I call the "Misogyny-Misandry Death Spiral", or MMDS for short.  And the MMDS is a negative-sum (lose-lose) game for all. It leads to nothing but tribalism, polarization, balkanization, and toxicity all around. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. famously said, "Hate cannot drive out hate.  Only love can do that".

Divide et impera. Divide and rule. Rinse and repeat. While the oligarchs laugh at the "little people" all the way to the bank.

The results of the 2024 election in the USA are in fact both a cause and a consequence of this vicious death spiral, which threatens to destroy the country, and ultimately the world if left unchecked.

Of course, men could very easily end this spiral right now along with the broader gender war if they truly wanted to, by "accepting the unacceptable" and surrendering to Women.  But unfortunately, there is nowhere near a critical mass willing to do so at this time yet.

Mother Nature Knows Exactly What She Is Doing (Updated Re-Post)

In a previous article, I had noted that we have little if anything to fear from an aging and eventually shrinking population in the future, while the very real ecological problems of overpopulation and ecological overshoot greatly dwarf any social and economic problems of the former.  But I did not get fully into the mechanics of exactly WHY birth rates are falling and have been falling for quite a while now.

I would of course be remiss not to note that the plandemic and especially the jabs (I for one refuse to inaccurately call these novel and experimental gene therapy drugs by their preferred V-word) played a role, but the trend of falling birthrates began LONG before anyone ever even heard of the "novel coronavirus".  In fact, it goes back decades.

It's almost like Gaia is trying to tell us something.  So read on, and let's answer the "clue phone" ringing louder than ever....

There also physical factors dampening fertility such as endocrine disruptors and other pollutants, which clearly play a role, along with widespread use of both licit and illicit drugs as well, but most of the drop in birthrates is due to more people of both genders choosing (consciously or unconsciously) to have either fewer kids or no kids at all.

The obvious reason?  Women are generally no longer forced and coerced as they once were to be serial breeding slaves, at least not in the rich-world countries.  So unsurprisingly, they are now having fewer kids, and starting later in life than before.  No wonder the reactionaries want so desperately to revoke Women's hard-won reproductive rights.  In fact, Women all over the world are increasingly FED UP with patriarchy, especially in traditional societies that have recently modernized.  To cite an extreme example, the country with the world's lowest total fertility rate (TFR), South Korea, there is currently even a Lysistrata-like movement called the "4B movement" (a combination of reproductive strike, dating strike, marriage strike, and sex strike against men by primarily the younger generation of Women) that is apparently rapidly catching on over there.  And it seems to be spreading to the USA as well, especially following the 2024 election.

And in parallel with that, a more subtle reason also emerges:  as men now have more "skin in the game" legally in regards to the children that they sire, compared with just a few generations ago, men also are finding that having too many kids and/or too soon is more burden than benefit for them as well.  Furthermore, at least in the rich-world countries, children are generally no longer a source of cheap labor anymore.  So it really doesn't make economic sense anymore for men to have lots of kids like in the past either.

Meanwhile, under late-stage capitalism and late-stage patriarchy, the cost of raising children continues to skyrocket along with the extreme inequality and (often planned and artificial) scarcity of resources (especially housing) thanks to the oligarchy and their sycophantic lackeys in government.  That impacts both genders, of course.  Increased life expectancy, urbanization, technology, and an accelerating pace of life also contribute to reduced birthrates well.

It is also an opportunity cost for Women as well, in that now that Women are now allowed to have (gasp!) education, careers, and stuff like that, and thus attempting the high birthrates of the past would clearly interfere with and put a damper on that.  Time and energy are finite resources, after all.  Reactionaries of course, at least when they aren't too craven to say the quiet part out loud, would cynically argue that Women thus have "too many choices" now, and that forcibly taking opportunities away from Women (!) would be the only way to restore the high birthrates of the past.  Technically, they are not entirely incorrect. That, and/or restoring the very high poverty and death rates (both infant/child and maternal) of the distant past, would indeed be the only way to restore such high birthrates.  But I don't think any sane person really wants to do either, nor would it be even remotely ethical.

Nor are the high birthrates of the past really a good idea in an overpopulated world in ecological overshoot, obviously.  "Replacement rate," which ultimately results in a long-term stable population number that is neither growing nor shrinking, is a total fertility rate (TFR) of roughly 2.1 children born per Woman.  For example, a TFR of, say, 1.5-1.8 or so (where most of the world currently seems to be converging towards, even in many non-rich countries) for a few generations would lead to a gentle and gradual population decline of roughly 10% to 25% per generation once positive momentum ends and then negative momentum sets in.  (A TFR of 1.0, around where most of East Asia seems to be converging, would result in an even sooner and faster population drop of about 50% per generation, and so on.)  Then, as the world becomes less crowded, and thus the cost of living drops, Women will likely decide to have somewhat more kids and the TFR will eventually settle around replacement rate once again.

Indeed, put too many rats in the same cage, and they simply stop breeding.  Same with humans, apparently.  And a gilded cage is still a cage.

All of this dovetails nicely with the Gaia hypothesis per James Lovelock.  That is, Mother Nature knows exactly what she is doing when a grossly overpopulated species wreaks havoc on the Earth as we continually transgress planetary boundaries like there is no tomorrow.  In the case of modern humans, we have artificially (and temporarily!) pushed back many of the natural limits that once held our population in check, so now we are, not coincidentally, losing at least some of the previous desire and/or ability to procreate until we ultimately get back into balance with Nature, God willing.  So it is unsurprising that all of the overt pronatalism in the world, even literally paying Women to have kids, is NOT really working to raise birthrates more than at the very margins.  Even the very generous and progressive Nordic countries are still significantly below replacement rate, albeit still higher than most of their neighbors to the south (except for France, who is also almost as generous as the Nordics).

That's not to say that a generous progressive and pro-humanity agenda (such as Universal Basic Income, Medicare For All, generous paid family leave, flexible work-life balance, shorter workweek, free or subsidized childcare, improved education, better support for parents and children in general, and stuff like that) would be useless, far from it.  I believe that it is simply the right thing to do for it's own sake regardless.  It's called ethics, and respecting the inherent dignity of the human person.  Humanism, in other words.  But, short of literally paying Mothers a total of at least $360,000 per child* (the approximate average cost of raising ONE child from birth until age 18, excluding higher education) in 2025 dollars, if one is somehow counting on such things merely to stop the population from aging or shrinking, they are most likely barking up the wrong tree.  The most it could do in that regard is slow down the rate of population aging and decline, so as not to hit too large a "pothole" on the road to sustainability. 

(*NOTE:  If your jaw just dropped reading that figure, think of it like this:  Mothering is literally the most important job in the world, yet it is one that literally pays NEGATIVE "wages".  The updated 2025 sum of $360,000 is really just breaking even, basically.  Now you see why practically all pronatalist initiatives, monetary or otherwise, don't really move the needle.)

Regardless, we must leave room for Nature, lest Nature ultimately not leave room for us.  We ignore that basic maxim at our own peril, not to mention that of the entire planet.

And certainly, we must never, ever, force, coerce, or deceive anyone to have kids against their will, period.  That is a very backward, outmoded, illiberal, and all-around toxic thing to do to anyone, and does NOT respect the dignity of the human person.  Doing so treats humanity solely as a means to an end, not an end in itself.  That should go without saying, of course, but when carrots fail, there will be the temptation to use sticks, as some countries are already doing today.

In a nutshell, an aging and shrinking population is inevitable, baked into the cake for several generations now, and the only thing we can really do is adapt to it.  How we will "ride the slide" is ultimately the "make or break" point for our species during the current Anthropocene epoch.  And the Earth will ultimately thank us if we get it right (and we absolutely cannot afford to get it wrong, as that is not an option).

Let the planetary healing begin!

P.S.  I realized that I had glossed over and neglected to mention the factor of NARCISSISM.  Some would argue that a supposed increase in "cultural narcissism" is at least partially responsible for people choosing to have fewer kids or none at all.  If that is true, then that is actually a GOOD thing on balance.  Narcissists truly make some of the very worst parents as a rule (second only to psychopaths and sociopaths), and narcissists of course tend to beget more narcissists, via nature, nurture, or both.  And a culture causing fewer narcissists to procreate as much will cause them to ultimately go largely extinct within a few generations, which would be to everyone's ultimate benefit overall. Indeed any case, attempting economic degrowth without population degrowth is ultimately an exercise in futility.  Once again, Mother Nature knows exactly what she is doing. 

(Mic drop)

Women Are Indeed Higher Beings (Updated Re-Post)

NOTE:  This article was originally posted in 2017, and updated accordingly since then.

A 2017 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.  And Women's and men's brains really are apparently wired differently, to one degree or another.

This study, consisting of behavioral experiments conducted by neuroscientists (Alexander Soutschek, et al.) at the University of Zurich, 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.  And when dopamine was blocked, the opposite tendencies were increased by both genders.  Thus, at a neurological level, Women are essentially rewarded for kindness, while men are rewarded for being selfish.  

Gee, who woulda thunk it?  In other news, water is wet, the sun rises in the east, and a bear does its business in the woods.

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 seems to merely coast toward such a conclusion.  Women seem to be naturally more prosocial and community-minded on average than men, even if culture can magnify (or reduce) such differences as well.

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 more or less toward a "gift economy" rather than an "exchange economy like we have now under patriarchy.  (Though I would argue now that a pure gift economy" would be very difficult if not impossible to do at scale, and thus I advocate a "hybrid economy" of both gifts and exchanges.)  Remember, the literal meaning of the word "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!