Morphing Into Matriarchy; Inching Towards Peace
By
William A. Spriggs
March 29th, 2008

[Please note: the following essay has evolved from answering the below question in the
Frequently Asked Questions section on What Is Evolutionary Feminism? found on this site].

Q: Ok, for the sake of argument you’ve convinced me that women are the cause of evolved male competitive aggression and you’ve also convinced me that women will shift the tide of world events towards world peace by once again morphing this male aggression into supportive partnerships – How is this going to happen?

A: Since the female of our species created man because she needed assistance in child rearing, the female of our species in the future most likely will create substitutes for the resources that the male provided in the past in the creation of the nuclear family.  Strong agreement in the evolutionary community believes she did this by allowing exclusive sexual access to the male in exchange for that assistance.  This future resource shift would divert her attention away from finding the most aggressive males with the most resources to benefit her progeny to female coalitions.  This, of course, will be no easy matter considering the evolutionary mechanisms that evolved from our ancestors and put humankind on this path that has become intertwined with the economic realities of today.  It also would create a substantial realignment of the dynamics between men and women regarding sexual relationships and would alter the cultural meaning of what exactly is the nuclear family.  But the goal would be the same: what is best for the children who are our future that is currently threatened in a dangerous world today.  The crutch of the new movement is the view that the human male’s historical preference for dominance through war has gone way beyond the evolutionary necessities of child rearing into nothing more than nationalistic testosterone contests between established and emerging nations whom are controlled by patriarchal coalitions; the modern, organized female groups also realize that this has evolved due to their support of “standing by ‘their’ men.”  But armed with new facts from the biological sciences and led by strong, tough, yet, caring women and their newly evolved male partners, they will point the way toward sanity and simple logic.  If our planet is engulfed in a fiery planetary war, then whose children would benefit the most?  The evolutionary feminist movement will still be based on the female supplying the most resources for her progeny, but the solutions from where, from whom, how, and to what degree those resources travel will change.

The main foundation of a new evolutionary feminist movement will flow toward female progeny cooperation instead of progeny competition.  The basics of the past will still remain because the female is still a biological entity, but in the social realm, the world in which we truly all live, the resource responsibilities will be shifted toward females helping other females accumulate and retain resources instead of masculine reliance.  This movement would evolve seeing other females as potential benefactors instead of competitors.  Of course, the newly evolved males of the future will understand this new philosophy as well and assist in any manner that they can.  For their assistance, they will be given the same benefits that they had under the old evolutionary mechanisms – sexual access for assistance – this will be viewed as a much better deal then in the evolutionary past because there would still be the sexual access, only now, it will would not require competitive aggressiveness; the goal being to breed out aggressiveness.  If this would come to pass, then perhaps one of the primary requirements in the sexual selection process for the female of the future may be the selection be the male on his ability to satisfy a woman sexually.

But consensuses of social norms are reality because we are social creatures.  This movement can only happen if, in the beginning stages, emphasis and resources are put in place that exclusively stress the educational knowledge of evolution and how this affects individual feminine thought in the mating process.  The educational forces will create a working knowledge of “the big picture” of evolutionary reproductive pressures and the importance of female helping female through resource contributions, networking, and feminine coalition creation know how.  This educational emphasis should help create a cultural shift in the belief that success of the movement could succeed and will lower, and perhaps, eliminate the possibility of large scale wars, which, we all know, does not benefit any living thing on the planet except the bottom line of corporate war profiteers and religious fundamentalists.  A new emphasis should be placed on assaulting the bastions of corporate elites and their privileged lifestyles – in particular the wives of these individuals who tend to be invisible – and who prop up the culture and lifestyle by supporting the males in the elitist ranks.  The objective: to teach corporations that wars kill people, and dead people don’t contribute to the profits of most corporations with the exception of those who value money over people and the survival of our planet.

But big problems would still exist.  And I would like to fame the beginning of this FAQ/answer/essay with the most likely negative outcomes of the movement.  I feel that since the movement precedes a realignment of women’s role in our society toward a matrilineal world away from the patriarchal alliances of the past, it would be an enormous undertaking that most likely would create extreme anxiety on the dominate, established groups of the past.  But if the survival of the species is at stake, it will happen; it’s like we all know that the supply of oil that is being sucked out of the planet’s bowels and is ending.  Our species is adapting to this problem by evolving the automobile away from the gasoline powered-engine and building denser communities closer to mass transit.

Let’s be honest at the beginning that we all recognize that the voyage ahead will be difficult – nay – torturous and dangerous.

Let’s start our voyage.

For example, if the female of our species no longer needs the aggressive male as in the past, what happens to all the excessive, aggressive males who end up as reproductive losers?  Well, for one thing, they are not going to be very happy.  In fact, they are not very happy right now in some parts of the planet.  In a recent New York Times article, dated February 17, 2008 by Michael Slackman, titled “Stifled, Egypt’s Young Turn to Islamic Fervor.”  It tells us that young Egyptian males increasingly are finding it very difficult to find jobs, and thus, to afford apartments that are viewed in their culture as necessary for marriage.  Unable to acquire the resources, the males live with their parents, become depressed, and find that turning to religion helps give them solace.  Unfortunately for our Western civilization, that means that these “bare branch” reproductive losers are easy candidates for religious fanatics as candidates in religious ideological wars; passing your genes with 72 virgins in heaven is better then not passing your genes at all in the physiological oppressive real world.  What it also means is that a stricter fundamentalist view of religion relies on disgruntled, all-male candidate units – you can’t have women lurking around and “distracting” the male operatives with their “come-hither, pervasive sexuality.”  That also means stricter enforcement of rules that suppress women; it is a return to the desert oasis mentality where survival of the group unit depended on the physical strength of the male to survive, and, unfortunately, that also means a return to the old ways of cultural thought of oppression through dominance.

And while we are on the subject of religious fundamentalism, one must put the greatest blame for the physical suppression of women on these organizations more than any other.  Yes, women had an acquiescent role in males coming to prominence, but in most cases, the atrocities these religious extremists executed during the Middle Ages against women put Islamic extremists to shame today (see “The Hammer of Witches” link below).  The evolutionary community today seems to believe that strict religious restrictions on sexual relations with women evolved from the bonded male hunters of our primate ancestors.  And most of those myths seem to have revolved around a women’s menstrual cycle.  The myth claimed that the prey could smell the blood of a women’s cycle and it either attracted the wrong predator or scared away the hunt.  Besides, males evolved the technique of bragging about their great hunting skills, (it helped attract females if they convince them that he was a great hunter) so why not blame the physically smaller and weaker females for any bad luck the hunter may have had?  The tighter the restrictions against women, the better chance for success in the hunt, and thus, the stronger the bond between the male hunters.  Of course, all of the myths of “man the hunter” as the great provider have been thoroughly trashed, and in the truth of the matter, it has been found in today’s hunter-gatherer tribes -- and thus most likely our primal ancestor’s --  that it is the women that provide over 75% for the tribe/clan’s provisions by their “gathering.”

As our species evolved and food became plentiful due to the domestication of plants and animals, populations grew, and so did the population numbers of bachelor males.  Now since the alpha males of old generally became top dogs and hogged all the top tiered women, the beta and Charlie males were left with slim pickings even back then.  But farming was tough and did require more effort on the part of the whole family unit.  And here the male proved his worth by planting seeds, warding off predators, watching the children, and bringing in the harvest.  So, because man was the strongest, the evolved culture in many societies, particularly in China, the male became the desired outcome of any couple’s new born child.  Perhaps here, and in other ancient farming cultures, that the meme of primogenitor grew from such a cultural belief and that these males should inherit all the families’ wealth (land, cattle, wheat).  In China, families also thought that the males would take care of them in their old age and that they would better protect their graves and honor them yearly in the afterlife.

A similar inheritance culture grew in the European regions which developed and evolved our Western Civilization’s cultural heritage.  Now, since some unlucky chaps were born second or third in the birth order, that meant that they would be out of luck -- they would be sent on their way, penniless, and that meant that they had only two paths to choose:   They could become priests or warriors. – These educated, yet penniless, bachelor males were faced with joining armies of nobles and most likely would be sent off to war and a quick death, or they could choose the soft life of a clergy devoted to poverty and chastity.  Well, stories of old tell us that some faced harsh conditions and devotion to poverty, but overall, they had a roof over their heads, plenty of food, and it was easy to move from one town to another being invited for dinner or a bed for the night in exchange for a blessing from their God or a hint of hope of salvation from the grinding poverty of a peasant.  And oh, yes, there have been many stories about monasteries being built with secret tunnels leading to the villages down the hill for a tryst.   Overall, it was a better career choice than being a peasant farmer or combatant.  One of the “missions” of the Church had to accomplish before they could establish dominance in the known world was that it had to squelch the pagan practice of Goddess worship.  If you’re a feminist of any sort, then you know that any mention of the religious persecution of witches and Goddess worship would fill an entire library of information as to what they did and how.  I’m only going to give one reference here and that is “The Hammer of Witches,” or Malleus Maleficarum at http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/.

Now you can begin to know why religious fundamentalist do not want women to acquire the knowledge of birth control or have control over their own bodies.  Because if the women were to have freedom of choice in their reproductive lives, then they could have the freedom to self-support themselves, and no longer be dependent on “their man.”  The argument that they present to the public is that if the “institutions” of man-wife marriages are threatened (usually given in responses to same-sex marriage arguments), then the moral nuclear family of society would crumple and decline into an unfit society with no morals.  What they don’t admit is the hidden agenda of male dominance as the head of these families with the female being submissive.  Since evolutionary feminism is based on the belief that the female of our species selected males for their aggressive ways through the choice of sexual selection, which then separated us from the primates, then “choice” is a behavioral mechanism rallying point that evolutionary feminists can not back down from.

So, if any group does physical harm to an evolutionary feminist group, it most likely would have its origins with religious fundamentalists.  So a major issue for an evolutionary feminist movement entails a solution to “what to do with bachelor males?” For further information about “bare branches,” go to my book review, Bare Branches: the Security Implications of Asia’s Surplus Male Population by Valerie M. Hudson & Andrea M. den Boer, http://www.evoyage.com/Book%20Reviews/BareBranches.htm

Another unhappy group would be the corporate executives who live in an elite atmosphere of wealthy surroundings in their neighborhoods, their friends, and their families. And since we are focusing on the evolutionary perspective, in some cases they surround themselves with serial wives, called trophy wives.  The creation of second and third-tiered families sustained within their own isolated communities upholds the myth that if a man is capable of producing and supporting multiple families, then his lifestyle would be equated with that of a powerful alpha male, hence, reinforcing one’s own myth. (Now think of the Mormon religion and multiple wives and suddenly religion and a “moral lifestyle” take a back seat to reproductive success).

These corporate male executive’s who control the media’s echo chambers would not take kindly to someone threatening their acquiescent pool of available, sexy women and the institutional beliefs that surround them.  The system that is in place, and the media outlets that they control, constantly reinforces the cultural suggestion that young, sexy women should chase after the richest and most powerful males in the country.  Any threat to that lifestyle and to the available pool of young, wiling reproductive women could expect enormous attack responses in the same media.  To the male executive, their elevated status is a powerful sexual attractant, and their creation of a cultural world that benefits them exclusively would be difficult to topple.  These sexy, young women are of course the next in line after their first, or, in some cases, their second wives who no longer fit the male corporate executive’s fantasy world ideal.  Trophy wives acquired through multiple serial marriages are the closest that these males will get to polygamy in the pseudo-religious world that they follow in our Western Civilization tradition; in both cases it increases their reproductive changes of passing their genes.  The movement should not attempt to topple such individuals, but merely creating cultural climate change around them by assisting females one new family unit at a time and passing the word by word of mouth – the most powerful cultural change mechanism available – because it is innate.

Another group that would be upset by the evolutionary feminist movement would be the conservative, dominate women who benefit the most from these ancestral past ways of reproductive competition.  Listen to me ladies – this is the most dangerous group that you will face after the physical threats of male religious fundamentalists, and you must be prepared to do battle -- These women do not care for your children or other children born downwind of opportunity; these are the women who live in safe communities who care only about the safety, health, and well-being of their own children.  These are the women who whisper into the ears of their alpha male protectors while making love to them and construct in them belief that they are good, strong, and powerful men, who, by their position in life, are being rewarded for their vaulted status by the alpha female‘s sexual essence that is lusted for by other men.  These dominate females also whisper in the alpha males’ ears that their children -- their future genetic vessels -- are sleeping soundly at night knowing that their powerful father is in the next room to protect them.  It is these women who would view your evolutionary feminist movement as a threat to their way of life and they will do all that they can to destroy you, your ideas, and your hopes for the future of the world because they don’t care about your movement for world peace.  These women can not see the future of overcrowded populations yearning to have a decent way of life for their children; they only see their world in front of them.  To quote Ann Browne in her book, A mind of Her Own: The Evolutionary Psychology of Women A mind of Her Own: The Evolutionary Psychology of Women as she writes in the first person to other women:

“When push comes to shove and there is not enough to go around, I am afraid that it must be my progeny, not yours in the next generation.” P. 310.

Feminists must never forget that it was a woman who campaigned against and defeated the ERA -- The Equal Rights Amendment in 1982.  That woman was named Phyllis Schlafly, and her plea to women was that they already had a superior status in America and the passage of the ERA would be a “demotion.”  To quote from a New York Times book review titled “She Changed America,” by Judith Warner, January 29, 2006:

“She opposed the ERA on the grounds that it would take away the “special protection” the “Christian tradition of chivalry” offered women -- in other words, the “right to be “supported and protected” by men.” 

In other words, the Phylis Shaftley’s of the world will be tearing down their fellow sisters in progeny competition with the aid of the males that they have selected.  It is also recommended that the best way to combat these dominate females is through the construction of a matriarchal media echo chamber and the continued building of female support coalitions.

Well, so much for the evil that lurks in the path of the new evolutionary feminist movement, now it’s time to look at the ways the future female will guide our species without aggressive males.

It has been argued that the bonobos and the chimpanzees are our two closest primate relatives, but DNA testing has determined that the chimpanzees are the more likely candidates as our human ancestors (see reference below).  This is important because the chimpanzee males are aggressive and dominate the female chimpanzee; the bonobo males are considered the complete opposite and are dominated by the female.  The important difference is that in the world of the bonobos, their society is without physical violence – the males do not “patrol boarders,” they don’t “form coalitions to go off to war,” and do not kill any “invading” bonobo males that may wonder in from another group as do the chimpanzee males.

Some scientist will argue the point that the female bonobo is not entirely dominate, but I would counter argue that point by saying that we must look closer at “cultural” differences between the various bonobo populations and in the population groups where the female bonobo is dominate, I am guided to believe that in those situations there is an abundant supply of resources (food).  The second reason is the open practice of sexual behavior that bonds the species together, in particular, the female to female coalition bonding.  The casual sex may appear “immoral” to some observers, but what is really occurring is the sex helps to glue permanent relationships and when the need for child assistance is needed from a “sister,” it is given without hesitation as would a “blood” relative.  As for the males, the open sexuality eliminates the need for sexual competition amongst the males, which in turn, lowers stress and tension, and that, of course, lowers aggression.  Why fight over sex if it is free and open?  All the males are reproductive winners.

So, what is it that the female of our species needs in order to raise her child without male assistance?  I think that if we turn to theMom's Rising.org organization, whose manifesto strongly believes that there is real discrimination bias against mothers in the modern American workplace and in society in general.  Their mission statement is to reverse these mechanisms against the female child provider.

In their “manifesto” they cleverly use the word “MOTHER” with each letter representing the areas in which they seek open assistance from their government.  I have only used the “talking points” and used my explanation afterward.  At the end of this brief overview of all their points, I try to explain why lobbying the government and politicians is not the best direction that the movement should take and why the evolutionary feminist movement needs to take control of their own projects.  The links below will take you to their site and explain their point of view on each item.

M – Maternity & Paternity Leave
DUH.  The 800lb gorilla in the room.  We split from our primate cousins because of the size of our large brains that would not fit through the birth canal requiring constant care of the human child while that brain grew to maturity.  Since the female of our species chose not to use the “mate with all the males in the group strategy” so that all the males might think any child could be theirs, to one male exclusively, hence the need to rely on one male for assistance.  So, if the male is cut from the equation, then maternity and paternity leave provided from an outside source does make sense; a minimum of two to three years maternity leave should be offered so that the child can reach the level of pre-school organizations.

O -- Open Flexible Work  This is so obvious to young families that it really needs no further explanation except to male knuckle-crawling employers whose only objective is wealth accumulation over people.  The need for flexible work that allows young parents to enter, bend, or leave for limited times in the work force is imperative.  The movement should devote its efforts in connecting female owned businesses who understand flexible needs with mothers looking for an on-ramp for reentry to the workplace, job training, jobs, child day-care, and assistance in traveling to those locations.  I strongly suggest a strong emphasis on telecommuting.

T- TV & After School.  The rising mother’s organization calls for clear and independent universal television ratings and safe, education opportunities for children after school doors close.  In this particular case, I see a need for educational TV linked to the local level – not a national “Sesame Street.”  Independent broadcasts from the local levels that tie into child care centers as well with emphasis on local issues and needs.  I think it would be better to combine day care and schooling together along with a strong education television networks principally owned by women that emphasize the new evolutionary feminist movement and gender equality.  The movement needs an echo chamber to create its own cultural construction to fit the new realities.

H – Healthcare for all kids.  Here’s another DUH.  Removing the stress of providing for the crushing healthcare costs that effect all Americans is a no-brainer.  But until that day arrivals, it would be essential for the evolutionary feminist movement to collect funds from more prosperous mothers and trickle down the resources below the “comfort line.”  Healthcare for kids up to the age of 18 -- the age which one can enlist in the military or  the age of self-emancipation.

E –Excellent Childcare  See above under TV & After School.  Once again, relieving the stress associated with child care costs will go a long way in providing the well-being of the parents as well as “mentally” trickling down to the children.  A calm parent is easily a compassionate, caring, and flexible parent.  Strong emphasis should be made at melding child care facilities into one central location such as the local elementary schools.  I see this as a school bus travel issue with heavy adult supervision on the buses to monitor behavior and give assistance.  I’m talking about 4 children per monitor who also are paid providers as well.

R – Realistic & Fair Wages.  Sure, I want to see a perfect world where everyone gets a living wage.  But, since the “invisible hand of the marketplace” (which is usually controlled by aggressive male knuckle-crawlers) will seek those employees willing to degrade themselves in a competitive marketplace with the lowest possible wages to benefit “the shareholders” then we usually find a race to the bottom.  Once again, the only solution is to have female controlled businesses that hire only women (and the males who understand the new movement) and reward them with realistic and fair wages that would really benefit the company in the long term.  (Remember, aggressive corporate males are always looking for the quickest path to obscene wealth to seek rewards in their personal surroundings, praise from other aggressive males of their inner circle, and to seek trophy wives).

Above I began to explain why lobbying the government and politicians is not the best direction that the momsrising.org people should attempt in bringing change that will benefit all mothers across the country.  This approach will not fly because there will always be a Phyllis Shaftley out there or some knuckle-crawling conservative that will scream that “money is being taken out of their pockets to pay for some “brown or black baby.”  (They won’t say it exactly that way, but behind all their greedy justifications lies the principal of dominates vs. subordinates.  Any suggestion that money from the higher ranks be “given” to those in lower status situations would be anathema to dominates.  We are all guilty of this is some form or another because we are social creatures who understand the benefits of belonging to a higher status than the one we currently occupy.  But corporate elites whom already make annual salaries beyond our imagination think that they are on the brink of starvation and that if just one dollar is “wasted” on the poor, it is money thrown away.  You see, in their delusional world, conservatives believe that money for rich people makes their own kind noble and wise, while money wasted on the poor makes them stupid and lazy.  Always remember this gem from the progressive economist John Kenneth Galbraith:

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercise in moral philosophy;
that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”

Now, those above were primarily objectives to assist the female to eliminate, or lessen the total dependency on a male for child rearing.  After all, the real objective in life is immortality because life is so wonderful.  Even though we can’t live forever (just yet), our genes can keep right on passing themselves into one generation into the next; transforming themselves by learning to adapt to every situation in their local environments.  You are reading these words because your ancestors – and you – are successful outcomes of solving specific problems and adapting to those changes throughout the generations.

But those objectives are only the start.  After we know that the children are safely cared for and provided with the best possible resources for success, we then have to turn our attention to all females on the planet, and in particular, to the young female on her ascendancy from infancy.  Every effort must be made to reverse the culture of female infanticide wherever it is found with the overwhelming educational logic to the populations’ involved of the benefits of no longer seeing the female as an extra cost burden.
Dr. Judith L. Hand, Ph.D., has written a small, yet powerful book entitled Women, Power, and the Biology of Peace.  She has given wise advice on what our planet needs to do to empower women – and that action, more than any other, is the true path that leads to world peace.

Education: Meaningful empowerment begins with wide and deep education, p. 138.  Simple in its concept, yet difficult to implement.  Dr. Hand points out correctly, that without even the basics of education women will be stuck in total submissiveness to the dominance of male physical strength and abuse.  Constantly the verbally and physically battered wife, she would stumble from situation to situation, always in constant fear of the male who dominates her, yet still more frightened of the unknown world without her male companion in a hostile cultural environment.

Dr. Hand sums up the dilemma faced by women for far too long:

“When they find themselves without power, as they have been in so many cultures, women do the best that they can.  For too many millennia, the ‘best they can’ was a rule that reads much like, ‘get as close as you can to the most powerful male you can and keep in the good graces of the males that run the system.’  The result has been collaboration with males in way that reinforced male-dominated systems.” P. 139.

Economic: Without economic security, women cannot afford to take the risk of stepping out to insist that things change.
“Without economic security, women cannot afford to take the risk of stepping out to insist that things change – or to recruit others to vote and act with them.  Only economic independence can free women from the need to collaborate.” P. 139.

Legal: Legal empowerment is particularly important with respect to divorce.
“Legal empowerment is particularly important with respect to divorce when divorce is possible, ensuring that women have access to their children and an equitable sharing of family assets.  Beyond these two most critical areas, laws must guarantee equal rights and responsibilities in all areas of life: equal pay for equal work, equal access to job training, legal protections against spousal abuse.” P. 140.

Religious: Without religious empowerment women will be silenced in the critical realm that molds our world view of what is right and what is possible.
“For traditional religions that have taught that women are to remain strictly in the home, change will come slowly and will be difficult…As women become empowered in education and wealth…their newly acquired position will exert pressure on their religions…If the collective wisdom comes to believe that it ought to be considered right and possible that women are equal to men in social and civic affairs, religion must, and will, eventually affirm that women are considered equal by whatever power they consider divine.  If religion doesn’t evolve to match a public commitment to equality for the sexes, we would be teaching children a message contrary to public practice.  While such a conflict between practice and belief can persist for a time, it is unlikely to be permanent. Pp 140 & 141.

Worldwide: Empowerment must be worldwide.  Empowering women in some cultures but not others is unlikely to bring a stable world.  Unless changed from within, cultures that are now patriarchal and steeped in the tradition of violence and war will continue to use, even celebrate, force.
“…Peace cannot occur when only some cultures embrace an unswerving commitment to non-violent conflict resolution.  All parties must be in agreement that force of arms will be rejected.”  pp. 141 & 142.

“Ah, to dream the impossible dream” as the song goes; dreams are wonderful, but how can we really make these changes happen if we have all these barriers in place?  The answer my lady friends is you must build your own systems without government assistance and to surround those projects with enough security so that no one destroys them.  As I mentioned above, there will be strong enemies seeking to end the movement because they would see a world in which you believe that males are no longer needed in the degree needed in the past for child assistance as a threat to the established “institutions” of marriage with the male (religious) God-figure as the head.  But what really drives their fear is the loss of dominance over individual women and the boost that this dominance gives to their testosterone driven egos.  It’s not just a “female” uprising; it’s a threat to dominance over all subordinates in a society that gives them fuels their desires for more power and dominance.  The insatiable desire for more power is like the fat cells in our bodies crying out “eat more stupid, cause you may starve tomorrow” after a full meal – there lurks in the male the constant innate fear of loss and defeat.  And once again, ladies, you made us this way; the power of patriarchy flows from those females who have taken the path of acceptance of this social system as the best path for her children’s future.  BUT THEY TAKE THAT PATH BECAUSE THEY SEE NO BETTER ALTERNATIVES BEFORE THEM.

But unrelated to that threat to male dominance there is the original problem of resource allocations to the young female thinking about reproducing.  In the early stages of the movement, there would just not be enough money and resources available for all.  A triage of sorts must be made to select those few at the beginning to receive the most resources.  Just as the wealthy everywhere on the planet, whose children are lucky enough to be born in the right place at the right time to receive the best of the best, so too, resources must be narrowed to a lucky few to be the most effective.  You can’t grow a garden with not enough soil, water, and sun.  Go forth and have something to show as a success, then those successes will attract more resources and more success.

What I am strongly suggesting is that, in the early stages, the resources that women can gather as a total entity should be separated into territorial regions and then narrowed down to districts or zip codes, or by whatever method selected, and at that point, calls should go out to the females in those locales to locate and nominate the brightest and most articulate of the young females amongst them.  Then a genuine Ms. Young American contest should be held to determine the answers to the most burning questions: whom do we wish to see succeed and whom is the most likely to succeed?; the last quality to be considered: the latest American concept of beauty – unless, of course, that is one of the criteria choices that the majority of the selection committee at the local environment decide.

Let’s not be scarce with resources here, people.  I’m not talking about just giving the winner of a local contest funds for higher education, a pat on the butt, and expressions of good luck in all their future endeavors.  What I am suggesting is a total entourage of adult advisors within arm’s reach of the young female winner 24/7 throughout her life up to the establishment of her own family of the future and beyond until agreements are made to part.  I’m even suggesting that the “parental” entourage pick her future male mate (or if desired, a female partner) and if the local “parents” and especially if agreed to by the “winner” so choose, engineering of the unborn.  (Hey, if we are to break the biological cycles of the past, we have to know the biological “errors” of the past and we should keep all options open).  So in order for this to begin, resources have to be provided for the lucky female winner and “parental entourage” – hopefully, in the early stages, it would consists of “parents” volunteering  their time and money to the movement.  Once, the new evolutionary feminist is embedded into her career, it would then be understood that the young woman then begin to contribute a large percentage of her yearly earnings (I envision up to 50%) as a “life return dividend” to the organization as repayment for the support that the movement has given her.  This would require a realignment of biological innate preferences from the female recognizing that her progeny have benefited from a matriarchal “boost up the hierarchy” and that she is socially bound to return the favor.  If enough generations go by, then the biological pressures could be bread into the DNA of future generations.  Since child care and health care expenses are totally paid for by the movement in the early years, it is not hard to imagine how this could be possible.  The method by which this cultural requirement message should be “transmitted” to the young female by the “parents” would be entirely up the local group at the local environment.

Now to the critics of all this who would shout “This is socialism,” or “that’s social engineering” one can merely reply, “sorry critics, but since this is not a governmentally funded movement, then your opinions are just that.”  Defense of the movement should always flow from the overwhelming logic of the first principal of evolutionary feminism that the female of our species does not form coalitions to attack and destroy our own species like the male of our species.  All defensive arguments should always be about the survival of our species and what is best for the children.  Remember: Global Warming was attacked by social conservatives until the overwhelming media coverage showed the “logic” of melting icecaps became the consensus view.  Our planet, in its rush for globalization is also rushing toward a global “cultural-ization.”  Once again, one of the dangers found in impoverished countries with a core of religious fundamentalists, they would see this as a threat to their established fiefdoms and attack any encroachment with rigor.

So, what would be the evolution of the nuclear family?  The way I see it, it would still be pretty much the same.  We would still see the young female selected, growing up in a society that cares about her future and growing up in a society where she knows that her entire education will be the best possible available and that her neighborhoods would be safe and secure.  The best foods and healthcare would always be available and that she would grow up knowing that when the biological urges begin to tell her body that it is time to reproduce, that there would be a whole network of concerned groups (but in particular, sisters) evaluating and contributing to her general welfare.  She would still be free to marry for “love” through the sexual selection process, for choice, one of the primary principals of evolutionary feminism would be unshakable.  But now she would be open to the idea that her sisters may have selected someone they thought as ‘special’ and that perhaps, she should consider their choice highly.  The reason she would value her sister’s selection is because all the choices would be based on biological imperatives – physical features, as to what would the group as a whole would consider “sexy” and, in particular, strong emphasis on the MHC gene complex considerations -- only now, the choices would have group selection mechanisms plus individual selection considerations – but always, the final decision would belong to the individual female.

In any case, we now have to face one of the major obstacles of evolutionary feminism:  What to do about excess bachelor males.  Let us never forget – it is the male of our species that are the pawn of dominate males in our societies in the year of our Lord 2008 –ON BOTH SIDES OF THE PLANET – it is the high ranking individuals who use these males (and, in some rare cases – women) as cannon fodder in protests or wars and view them as excess human waste to move them like chess pieces in a game to enrich themselves and their future genetic progeny.

Another interesting cultural development may be the “male dowry” of the future.  Parents of young males outside the evolutionary feminist circles may begin to see that the successes that evolutionary feminism would be having in terms of lifting the female into higher positive social value hierarchies for the female (who knows – perhaps some would even reach celebrity status) and they may become aware that this could be an advantage genetically.  Offering a male dowry to gain acceptance as a possible candidate for future ‘winners” of the movement could have large appeal, and I envision lobbying effects to various “parent” organizations within the movement.  How the monies would be distributed would be entirely up to the “parents” of the winning females selected.  Perhaps male groups who understand the biological forces in play could from their own “auxiliary” groups and search for the best and brightest amongst themselves and chip into a male dowry fund for this individual; or perhaps, a male mating lottery.

One radical feminist once wrote that a man would swim through a river of snot for sex.  Well, this man wouldn’t – but then, I’m no longer 19 years old and at the peak of my biological sexual drive either.  At 62, my age at the time of this writing, I’m more concerning about the final chapters of my life than I am about mating with women and becoming another proud reproductive winner (I have one biological grandchild with one on the way).  But I still remember what it was like when I was at that age and I was obsessed about sex and women.  I thought about it a quite a bit – no, I thought about it constantly to be more accurate.  (Watch the first movie in the series, American Pie to give you an idea what young males are thinking about).  And even through the flame of sexual passion has grown a bit cooler and there is “snow on the roof,” I still have a “fire in the furnace” down below.  I still flirt and even go though the ‘reproductive movements’ with some women I meet because I know from body language and gestures that some women feel the same as I do and they flirt back.  We both go through the behaviors that we knew so well in our reproductive peak periods, but in reality, we both know that those movements will not reach a simulative touch stage, nor will there be fulfillment of deep repressed sexual passions.  But, it still feels good to my ego; and, I’m sure that my ‘flirting partner” feels the same way.  There is “worth” knowing that you are “being wanted” by the opposite sex – you know it, and I know it.

We know the evolutionary basics: The gender with the most at stake is the more cautious of the two genders.  The female, if impregnated, not only has to raise a child in her body for nine months, she then has to nurture the child until the child is emancipated.  For the male, whose risk is minimal, could, if he is a cad or a Nazi knuckle-crawler, merely wipe himself clean and walk away to impregnate another woman held hostage to his dominance. 

And that is why we must focus on the seriousness of this issue concerning males who are, what the Chinese call, “Bare Branches” – males who do not have wives, or have little prospect of supporting a wife and family and who are faced with the strong possibility of becoming reproductive losers.  If we have all experienced how good it feels to be wanted by the opposite sex, then we also must know how it feels when we are rejected by a potential mate we desire.  Now, add in the strong possibility that these bachelor males we are talking about are under-educated and most likely at the bottom rung of society, we begin to get a better picture.  We turn to Valerie Hudson and Andrea den Boer in their seminal work, Bare Branches, to give us a detailed looked at this group:

“First, they belong predominantly to the lowest socioeconomic class…Second, in economies with market features, bare branches are more likely to be underemployed or unemployed.  They are also more likely to be chosen for low-status jobs that are dangerous, menial, labor intensive, or seasonal…Third, bare branches are typically transients with few ties to the communities in which they look for work…Fourth, bare branches live and socialize with other bare branches, creating distinctive bachelor subcultures.”  Pp. 188, 189, & 190.

So, what’s the big deal?  Why should we focus on these males if we are only concerned with a feminist movement?  Because, my dear, these reproductive losers are aggressive leftovers from your biological strategy that you found best suited to your reproductive plans.  We, as a society should be concerned because their general group behavior is not conducive to the general well being of society.  Once again, here’s Hudson and den Boer to break down the behavioral tendencies of bare branches

“First, males are more violent than females…Second, males engage more often than females in other types of anti-social behavior…Third, unmarried males commit more violence than married males…Fourth, low-status males commit more violence than high-status males…Fifth, males commit more violence under the influence of alcohol and certain drugs than males not under such influences…Sixth, transient males commit proportionately more violence than non-transient males; they also then to be victims of violent crime more often than non-transients…Seventh, males who are predisposed to risk-taking (i.e., men who are young, unmarried, low status, or substance abusing) exhibit even more exaggerated risky and violent behavior when in groups."  pp 192 – 199.

If you’re an aggressive male and you’re mentally unstable, that rejection could turn to hate, and in the most extreme of cases, turn to dominance and possible forced copulation to achieve reproductive success.  (A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, by Randy Thornhill & Craig T. Palmer, MIT Press, May 2001).  Since evolutionary feminism is embedded within the confines of biology, then we know the female chooses the crème de crème of those males in her local environment, or those males whom she thinks will have a great future ahead of them (say, a young boy who shows great hunting skills in a hunter-gathering culture, or a pre-med student in our modern world.

In the world of mating competition, that means that not all females will find suitable mates and also will become reproductive losers because there won’t be enough high-ranking males around (such as may be the case in the African-American community in America).  But if this is the case, then they have chosen that path instead of “settling” for any reproductive male.  Unfortunately, many do end up settling for second, or in some cases, third place choices, resulting in bad marriages that end in divorce or worse – emotionally scared children.

But, women, who become reproductive losers, most likely would not go out and rape a male to become a reproductive winner.  As I discussed above, the gender with the most to lose is the most selective, and I have given you some insight what happens to that aggression when males bond in groups to form coalitions of reassurance.  Society’s main remedy to the problem has been to “target” these males closely (SMTH – Subordinate Male Target Hypothesis found in Social Dominance theories) and arrest them for the most minor of offenses, and when they reach a magic number of three convictions, they are permanently locked up in prison for a period of time that usually surpasses their reproductive years.

“After three decades of explosive growth, the nation’s prison population has reached some grim milestones: More than 1 in 100 American adults are behind bars.  One in nine black men, ages 20 to 34, are serving time, as are 1 in 36 adult Hispanic men.”  (Prison Nation, The New York Times, editorial, March 10th, 2008).

We might has well admit that the reason we do this activity is to “put them away” forever so that we, as a collective society, don’t have to see them, and thus, we then know that we won’t be called upon to express empathy.  What a waste of humanity.  But, at least the charade of attempting to “reform” these individuals has been dropped because we no longer call them “correction” facilities.  We are turning them into private holding pens for people we want to discard.  Why we don’t just build gas chambers and be rid of them?  Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot; we are a compassionate and just country -- Sorry, my sarcasm overtook me there for a moment.

But we haven’t gotten down and dirty and attempted to address the aggression problem in intelligent ways by asking some simple questions:  If biology is the cause of war and aggression in males as some in the evolutionary feminist movement believe, is biology the cure for war and aggression?  Or another more important way of framing the same question -- since sex is the biological mechanism for reproductive success, is sex the cure for war and aggression in males?  Do stiff cocks cause wars?  Well, some scientists believe males become less aggressive through the “pacifying effect of marriage” (Daly, Martin, and Margo Wilson, 1990, “Killing the competition”: Female/Female and Male/Male Homicides, Human Nature 1:81-107).  I strongly believe that this innate desire for sexual release trough sexual access is the driving force behind male aggression and that the removal of competition of “getting it” through marriage does “calm” this male aggressive nature.  If we are really genuine about achieving world peace, we have to seriously look into ways of “relieving” this sexual tension on a global scale.  So how do we “calm the beast” of sexual desire in males if the globe will be faced with a vast numbers of bachelor males as Hudson and den Boer predict in their book?  And here’s the another reason for alarm: if the female no longer will require male assistance in child rearing in the numbers that they once used because of the successes of the evolutionary feminist movement, there will be even more bachelor males “out on the street” looking for ways to pass their genes with fewer opportunities to do so.

Well, to me, the first obvious answer is to find suitable wives for these males.  So, if we know how important the big global concern over this subject is, then when I suggest a global match-making effort, perhaps it does not sound so crazy.  After all, internet web dating is experiencing explosive growth and is going international (Time magazine, January 28th, 2008, “We Just Clicked, p. 86”).  We are doing amazing things with computers and their ability to unite and educate the populations amongst us.  But what good would it do to create a global match-making effort if there is no effort to make sure that all these males are gainfully employed and each has the ability to earn enough money to put aside to gather resources in which to attract a female?  Remember the story above about our underemployed male friends in Egypt?  Since most of these reproductive losers I have been writing about fall into the category as described above, is it possible to educate them to the level needed in our high-tech globalized world?

The obvious solution to that problem is for all governments to get on board and create make work projects similar to what this country did during The Great Depression – yes, my dear, greedy conservative friends, the market place could build a road, bridge, solar panel roof, a turbine blade, or Hydrogen Cell production plant for less money by hiring the cheapest labor, thus assuring that all workers live in misery while you gleefully gloat about the pile of money you are counting.  But at least we liberals understand that in order to build a just, fair, and healthy society, we understand that you need to ensure that your populations have stable and livable wages.  If a link chain fence is only as strong as its weakest link, then our global society is only as great as the poorest amongst us.

Why would a society create make work programs for these STMs (Subordinate Target Males)?  Well, how about his argument:  If it takes $35,000 a year to house target males in prison, why not create jobs of $25,000 a year?  I mean, wouldn’t that save America the cost of housing these males?  If a man applies himself diligently and manages to put money aside, would not this increase his changes of attracting a mate, and once he attracted a mate, would he not become more committed to the community where he lives and all things that concern the rest of us?  The answer why cities, states, and politicians at the Federal level do not take this fiscally sensible path is because the “money smart” conservatives have temporally won the argument that “being tough on crime” is a supreme method of crushing your opponent at the ballot box by playing the “inferior Willie Horton” strategy.  The real objective here, I am afraid, is not to be concerned about the public safety of law abiding members of society, and make sure that they are save in their persons, but to make sure that “inferior” persons are housed away from dominate populations so as to insure that none of the dominant’s “stuff” is stolen.  And, here’s the bonus for conservatives – those inferior subordinate males locked up also can’t deflower their pure, virginal daughters and “spoil” them with their inferior genes.  You see, while a male is in prison, he can’t reproduce and spread his genes.  And, as the credit card television commercial tells us – “That’s Priceless” to a dominate conservative who dwells in a world of his or her own greedy self interest.

Along a similar line to these make work projects could include a civilian military core stationed within poor, urban cities.  I proposed this in my October 2007, essay: Posse Comitatus 2.0 (http://www.evoyage.com/BillsEssays/PosseComitatus2.htm).  This proposal calls for a “masculine” presence of military troops stationed in the core of the 100 most populous inner-cities; their presence being that of a calming method on the populations.  Basically in that essay, I suggested that the military become the “father” image and make sure that neighborhoods are safe, drug free, clean, and that medical and dental services be provided for all the populations within that core area.  In exchange for this peace of mind and presence, the military would be free to recruit young inner city males within the high school system.  Shocking idea of stationing troops within our inner cities, you think?  Perhaps.  But, as a veteran myself, I see nothing wrong with serving our country – besides, it would be stable employment with a purpose, and once again, this would allow the young male to acquire resources in which to attract a female.  But please do read the above essay for more detailed information.  

Another possible way of making sure that males become pacified would be to legalize multiple - husbands by females (Polyandry).  If the new feminist movement succeeds than it is to be assumed that many more resources would be shifted to the female of our species and her future progeny.  I am not suggesting that laws be passed which deny males any inheritance rights to a female’s estate as males excluded females in our human past, but merely believing that more women in future will be major players in high ranking policy making position in politics, corporate leaderships, and, I even envision major religious roles.  (Now, that ought to make the Pope roll his eyes up when he will be forced to proclaim that women will become priests and be allowed to have multiple husbands!). 

After all, if the female of our species allowed sexual access to males in exchange for child assistance, would it not make more sense to have more of them around?  Say, one for house maintenance, one for transportation needs, and of course, actual child rearing assistance, as in changing diapers and educating the young progeny.  Sound like a dream?  No, the fantasy part is how to arrange the sexual access with all the male partners.  Besides I am afraid that male jealousy and male pride may not be able to take a second or third tiered position in sharing female sexual access.  There has been too many years of aggressiveness bred into the male centered on “conquering” and dominance in “getting it”; but, as you have been reading – I’m an optimist.  Yet at the same time, that which has been bred into the male could also be bred out.

Now, as for this idea to follow, I am not suggesting this as a possible method for reducing aggressive male populations, but since the need and “usefulness” of the male would be reduced in the future, it is possible that some cultures will do to the male as some cultures do today to females for the same reason.  That method that is in use today is called female infanticide, or sexual preference birthing.  Female infanticide is very wide spread in China and India – two of the world’s most populous nations because of agrarian traditions and religious practices that dictate that males should pray and honor their elders and attend to their ancestors graves.  Not to mention the mere physical strength of the male when it comes time help around the farm and bringing in the harvest.  Although illegal in China, it is still widely used in rural populations when lab technicians or doctors signal to the parents by lighting or not lighting a cigarette whether the child is either a male or female (Bare Branches).  If the culture shifts, and male dowries become fashionable, then it may come to pass that the male child would be in danger of infanticide because poor parents, who see male dowry’s as expenses too much to bear in the long-term, or they already have several sons, may wish to take this path.  I hope that this vision never comes to pass, but at the same time, I don’t like what is happening to unborn females in China and India in 2008, yet, I am powerless to do anything about it.

It is at this point that I have decided to end this particular essay primarily because it has already gone on too far already and the concluding suggestions are a bit too controversial; I’m thinking of posting them in a “private” area of the web site and only open it to invited guests only.  As for my final suggestions in our quest to pacify the male aggression, I have left the most controversial for last: The elimination of prostitution through the legalization of female controlled prostitution.

Yes, my dear moral conservative who’s jaw has just dropped and the expression of horror has just been squeezed up from your lungs out over your windpipe and out though your lips giving audible life to your gasping indignation.

Would I want my daughter or granddaughter to become prostitutes?  No, I would not.  But despite your moral outrage and all the legislations passed in all the countries on the planet, and the disapproval wagging of your collective fingers, children are still being born into brothels.  Women all over the planet are still being exploited for their bodies; they are being beaten, lied to, drugged with addictive chemicals, raped, and transported to places and situations where they can’t escape.  Do you still sit there and dare to tell me that I am immoral by the mere suggestion that I am trying to reduce male aggression?  It is your fault that prostitution still exists.  I do want to take one play from the conservatives’ playbook: If you want to destroy a business, then tax and regulate it to death.  That is the path that I think that society should follow: Legalize this disdainful business, then regulate and tax it to death.  The taxes collected would be plowed back into positive ideas that I and other’s wisdom have listed to empower women all over the world.  But,  more about this later in another essay.

Another idea would be the acceptance of gays and their lifestyles.  I could care less where some guy sticks his dick as long as his sex drive is reduced.   Once again, more later about this in another essay.

Another idea would be that women will be so empowered that they will form “Skank Sisters Clubs,” “Suicide Girls” going from nightclub to nightclub and “skanking” males while their “playing hard to get sisters” watch and their jaws drop open.  Once again, more later about this in another essay.

And of course, another idea would be to isolate males in subsidy housing near make work projects and shove sexual repressive chemicals down their throats for the sake of “morality.”  Once again, more later in another essay.

In the meantime – let the movement begin.

Below: reference concerning human from chimpanzee data.
Abstract
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 36: 191-209 (Volume publication date September 2007)
(doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094339)

First published online as a Review in Advance on June 18, 2007
Genomic Comparisons of Humans and Chimpanzees
Ajit Varki1 and ­David L. Nelson2­
1Glycobiology Research and Training Center, Departments of Medicine and Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093-0687; email: a1varki@ucsd.edu2Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030; email: nelson@bcm.tmc.edu
The genome consists of the entire DNA present in the nucleus of the fertilized embryo, which is then duplicated in every cell in the body. A draft sequence of the chimpanzee genome is now available, providing opportunities to better understand genetic contributions to human evolution, development, and disease. Sequence differences from the human genome were confirmed to be 1% in areas that can be precisely aligned, representing 35 million single base-pair differences. Some 45 million nucleotides of insertions and deletions unique to each lineage were also discovered, making the actual difference between the two genomes 4%. We discuss the opportunities and challenges that arise from this information and the need for comparison with additional species, as well as population genetic studies. Finally, we present a few examples of interesting findings resulting from genome-wide analyses, candidate gene studies, and combined approaches, emphasizing the pros and cons of each approach.