We have addressed the basic question “Should Men Be Allowed to Serve in the Military?”
The record is abundantly clear that the male mind, as currently programmed by today’s societies, is simply too dangerous to be allowed to continue his violent rapacious antics across a nuclear-armed planet.
While we move towards a world where conscious cooperation replaces unconscious competition, will women be any less likely to blow Planet Earth to smithereens?
The evidence in support of this is now clear. Do you remember in school being taught about “fight or flight”? – that universal reaction to threats and stress which studies have confirmed is common to animals as well as humans?
Well, it turns out, in true misogynistic fashion, the male scientists didn’t bother to study women, they only studied men. Even the lab rats were male!
Only when women examined the data did they realize that these male scientists had written them out of the script. Again. They repeated the studies on women and found that the “fight or flight” reaction was only partially true for women.
We have outlined the full story here, “Even the Rats Were Male.”
No. Women don’t live in that male, “kill or be killed” space, because they have small children to consider. Their response has been called “tend and befriend.”
Psychology Today explains it this way:
“You are walking alone in a dark alley late at night when, all of a sudden, you feel the barrel of a gun pressed to the back of your neck and hear a voice saying: ‘Give me your wallet or I will kill you.’ What do you do?
“The answer is: it depends on whether you are a man or a woman. If you are a man, you either run away as quick as you can or you turn around and punch the guy in the face. If you are a woman, you try to talk yourself out of the situation: ‘Are you sure you want to do this?’ you ask the robber, or ‘If you put the gun away, we can talk about the situation and I will see what I can do to help you.’”
Now if this example were about nuclear weapons – that if used, will kill you, everyone you know, and the rest of humanity – which approach would you suggest?
Do you remember the amazing time when Gorbachev signaled to Reagan that it was time to end the cold war and the decades of nuclear stand-off that had several times brought the world close to total annihilation? Do, you know who was one of the main forces behind that extraordinary move towards peace? Check here to be surprised. Then wonder why you are surprised.
As a Vogue article makes it very clear:
“As conflicts rage, an important sea change is afoot in the world of peacekeeping: the rise of women.” They make the point clearly: “When women’s civil society movements are engaged in peace processes, there is a much higher chance an agreement will be reached and when women participate meaningfully in those processes, the chances of the agreement failing decreases by 35 per cent.”
In spite of the evidence, men – whose fight and flight mentality is exactly the wrong tool for peacekeeping – manage to exclude women even from this role. Vogue writes, “Between 1992 and 2019, women constituted, on average, 13 per cent of negotiators, six per cent of mediators and six per cent of signatories in major peace processes around the world. Those figures are even more disappointing when you consider that, according to the UN, women are more likely than men to take on the work of peacebuilding in their local communities.”
Another study found that the participation of women in peacekeeping efforts, ‘”increases the probability of violence ending within a year by 24%.”
Can women lead as well as men? Seems they can do better.
“I compiled death rates from the coronavirus for 21 countries around the world, 13 led by men and eight by women. The male-led countries suffered an average of 214 coronavirus-related deaths per million inhabitants. Those led by women lost only one-fifth as many, 36 per million.”
In case you are wondering, the total global deaths to date from Covid are estimated by the WHO at about 15 million and by The Economist, Nature, and The Lancet to be about 18 million. Now, heading towards about 20 million.
Four-fifths of that number were lost by male leadership, compared with one-fifth by female leadership? So, that would be a cool 16 million fewer lives lost by feminine leadership. That could look pretty impressive on anyone’s CV.
What would the world look like if men were not allowed near any lethal weaponry? Would President Truewoman have dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan, vaporizing hundreds of thousands of civilians in seconds? We can’t be sure.
What we do know is that our whole history has been essentially dominated by male warfare. As Osho describes it, 5000 wars in 3000 years! It is enough already.
Now, as the current situation shows, if nothing changes, eventually some crackpot man is going to press that button and provoke a nuclear exchange. Our current score is two nukes dropped on two cities in the last 80 years. What’s your guess for the next 3000 years?
We already know that there are enough nukes to wipe everyone out many times over.
So, are you really going to put your trust for the future of life on Earth in the hands of the petulant pouting Putin – who has already proven he has no compunction about razing cities to the ground if he feels it is in his interest to do so? Or Kum il-Sung? Or Modi? Or Some Pakistani general? Or a Trump. Or a Xi Jinping? It could be anyone. And in 3000 or 300 years, or maybe 30 years – we will all be toast.
If we continue as now, it is not if, but only when.
Meanwhile, the men of Planet Earth might want an explanation.
Humans have been brainwashed into believing the propaganda about male superiority. We have been brainwashed to believe that something called “human nature” justifies the whole idea of “patriarchy.”
Firstly, if it were really human nature how come after about 300,000 years of homo sapiens’ time on planet earth, it was only in the last few thousand years that patriarchy become the fashion. Before that, no one even knew who “dad” was anyway. Who could remember what happened nine months ago? What to say of “Patriarchy.”
Gerda Lerner, author of The Creation of Patriarchy, explained in a New York Times interview, that, “As a system, patriarchy is as outdated as feudalism.” Described as “one of the most brilliant historians of our era” she contends in her book “that male dominance over women is not ‘natural’ or biological, but the product of a historical development begun in the second millennium B.C. in the Ancient Near East.”
In particular a study published in the European Journal of Archaeology, which analyzed 5000-to-8000-year-old graves on the Iberian Peninsula, discovered evidence of the first inklings of gender inequality. As one of the authors of that study, archaeologist Cintas-Peña, explained:
“If we can say that gender inequality began in the Neolithic, or in the Copper Age or in any period, it means that it’s something cultural, it’s not something biologically determined.”
So, it is no surprise to find the men and women in the few remaining matriarchal societies doing perfectly well.
Then there is the claim that you just have to look at the animal kingdom to confirm how natural male domination is. Except it doesn’t.
Zoologist Lucy Cooke, author of “Bitch: A Revolutionary Guide to Sex, Evolution & the Female Animal” explains: “It is complete bullshit. Using animals as ideological weapons is a dangerous game. You can find whatever you want in the animal kingdom. You could say look at the hamadryas baboon where the males kidnap the females while they’re still adolescent, then use systematic bullying in their harem to keep them oppressed, that’s a model for human behaviour, or you could look at the bonobos and say these females have overthrown the patriarchy through ecstatic same-sex frottage!”
In Wired magazine, Cooke explains: “A sexist mythology has been baked into biology, and it distorts the way we perceive female animals. But fortunately, in the last few decades there has been a revolution in our understanding of what it means to be female.” And that, “Science, it transpires, is soaked in accidental sexism.”
“Ah yes,” says The Guardian in a review of her book. “Bonobos: these peaceable primates use sex toys, practise oral sex and establish and maintain female-led social structures through ‘genito-genital rubbing.’
“That’s entertaining, but it also matters: as Cooke says, it challenges the clichéd narrative on sex roles in primates, our closest animal relatives.”
About the idea that nature supports the stereotype of the nurturing mother and providing father, Cooke explains: “The majority of the animal kingdom is not like that: Dad’s eating the babies, Mum’s shagging the neighbours.”
They just weren’t paying attention to Norman Rockwell or watching US TV in the golden age of the nuclear family it seems.
The key point is that once we realize that patriarchy is not ordained by biology or by some guy in the sky, then it is our choice, and our responsibility, how we want to live. We don’t have to operate like robots.
Why men took over is also critically important to understand – for each man relives that same ugly journey.
First you get told you have fight and struggle and compete against everybody else to prove you are number one. It is basically every man for himself supported by all the reasons we listed above that are inculcated into kids’ heads. Moreover, you are going to “be a man” – and men don’t cry and show emotion. Tears are for sissies, for girls, not boys. Men are strong. Men are logical, rational and have a good mind, and are not interested in all that emotional heart business that women weep about.
What is driving this insanity? Only people who think they are inferior need to play the game of pretending they are superior.
So, it seems “men suffer from a great inferiority complex – why?” Osho explains it very clearly.
Generation after generation… the brainwashing factories churn out guys who are reduced to dumb believers in all this doodoo and who then wonder why it doesn’t make them happy.
In a recent article in The Washington Post, they describe the work of Bill Hawley, a “prevention specialist” in Wyoming’s cowboy country. His job is to connect with people “who struggle with alcohol and drug abuse, tobacco addiction, and suicidal impulses.” He “believes too many men are unwilling or unable to talk about their feelings” and, approaching “one Wyoming man at a time, he hopes to till the soil for a new kind of American masculinity.”
They write, “Here in cowboy country, the backdrop and birthplace of countless American myths, Bill knows “real men” are meant to be stoic and tough. But in a time when there are so many competing visions of masculinity — across America and even across Wyoming — Bill is questioning what a real man is anyway.
“Often, what he sees in American men is despair.”
The answers are simple, even if not so easy.
First, we need to stop passing all this nonsense on to the next generation – it is called brainwashing when “others” do it – so then the cycle of violence will stop.
This will be the ultimate challenge to the art of motherhood.
Children can discover – as the latest research confirms – that males can also react to threats and stress with the same tend and befriend response typically seen in females. We no longer need to live in a world dominated by that “kill or be killed” mentality.
Then he won’t even want to play with machines designed to kill people, let alone destroy the only planet he has to live on. They can relax allow themselves to enjoy their feminine side, understanding that feminine qualities belong to the future.
Men can learn intimacy, gentleness, an inner strength that comes from consciousness, not from the body or the mind. Something that both men and women can share together and so enrich each other’s lives.
“Man has always felt inferior to woman. Because he has felt inferior to woman, he has tried in every way to repress woman and make himself superior. It is a simple logic: only the inferior man wants to be superior. The superior is already superior, there is no question of wanting it. Unless man frees woman completely from all bondage – religious, political, social – he will never get rid of his own inferiority complex.
“The freedom of woman is going to be the freedom of man too. It is not only woman’s liberation, it is as double-edged liberation. And science has given you all the means to be liberated now.”1
You can read the first part of this article here: “Should Men Be Allowed to Serve in the Military”