The future of feminism.

written by "Gabor", a.k.a. "Mr Spock"

Feminism will alter our world a great deal more than even socialism,
arabs, jews, any race, the government, or just about any problems people
think today as problems. 

This chain of thoughts came to my mind many years ago. Since it is a
rather complex issue, I never could write it down as a complete unit. I
started, stopped, abandoned articles many times. Even this one is far
from perfect, but at least I got to the end. So, if you disagree with
any parts of the article (or entirely), please ask first, before
blasting the article.

Part 1. I am a gynecologist. I am seeing women, day in and day out for
the last 25 years. Of course I hear great many complaints, but there is
one, which is "showing up" every day, linked to many medical (and
non-medical issues). And that is sex. As in: an amazing number of women
either hate sex, barely tolerates sex, allows sex, and as a best case
scenario "likes it a little bit". The picture what men would like to
see, that women desires and likes sex the way they do is extremely rare.
Even if there are such cases, often after the first child, it evaporates
(the desire and enjoyment).

I was thinking about all this a great deal and I got to the following
conclusion: In the biological world there is no such thing as
"equality". Everything is strictly "goal oriented". So is sex. The
purpose of sex is the multiplication of the species. Nature doesn't
"care" how that is achieved, as long as it is achieved. Some species the
female kills the male after sexual intercourse, the purpose of the male
is fulfilled, end of story. Some other species males impregnate many
females. Some species has sex once a year, other species many times a
day. Some species don't even meet for impregnation, see many fish, where
the female lays the eggs, male later comes releases sperm, and that's
how it happens. So, what I am trying to say: many different methods,
only the goal matters, the way it's done doesn't matter.

Mammals: what is libido? Same as thirst or hunger. A SIGNAL which
indicates to the individual of the species that "time for the
multiplication of the species". Just like thirst:"time to consume
water", just like hunger:"time to find nutrition". God or evolution
(pick your choice you believe in, doesn't really matter) set it up
cleverly: sends an unpleasant signal to do things, sends a pleasant
signal if it is being done. Thirst is unpleasant, drinking a glass of
cold water is pleasant. Same with food, same with sex, same with any
bodily function (holding urine is unpleasant, let it go is pleasant). 

Now let's try to concentrate on libido. If we observe the world of
mammals, we notice that in most cases the male is the "initiator". The
male seeks out the female, often times more than one male at the time,
sometimes they even fight with each other (sometimes to the death) for
the right of sex with the female. The role of the female is usually
different, makes herself desirable (color, smell, behavior, etc.) seldom
has to fight, usually just "waits on the sideline" for the winner, and
have sex with the winner. 

Now the big question: which role needs a STRONGER SIGNAL? The role which
includes seeking, finding, fighting, or the role of simply allowing the
winner to do it? I think it is obvious, the male needs the stronger
signal, the stronger libido. Does nature CARE? Of course not, as long as
the function is fulfilled, it's fine. 

Enjoyment (of sex), orgasm. Why do living things has to enjoy sex? Quite
simple indeed? So they will keep doing until the function is fulfilled.
How would the male mammal "know" how long he has to do it, unless there
would be some signal that "it is done"? The sexual process is kind of
"unnatural" if you think about it, for animals the physical position is
not like anything else they do. Not only they need to be near to each
other, not only it has to be in an exact position, on top of it a small
part of the body (penis) has to be placed in a small part of the female
(vagina). There must be some very strong incentive for animals to do
that. That's why the enjoyment. The orgasm? The desire (to keep doing
it) instantly evaporates. That's the signal that "it is done". The male
can pull it out and go on his way, wherever. Nature doesn't care, the
function of the multiplication of the species is done. 


Part 2. Humans are mammals. There is zero reason to think that it works
any differently, and it isn't. Males has the stronger signal (libido)
which mankind knew for thousands of years. It was always men going after
women, men being the so called "agressor", men wanting sex more often
than women. How much signal needed for the male? To seek, find the
female, fight for her with the other males. How much signal was needed
for the female? To "wait for the winner and allow it to happen". And
that's exactly how it works among humans.

It's amazing that today's feminism forgets what was known for thousands
of years, that women never desired sex as much as men did. How can we be
sure of that? Very simple. What's the so called "oldest profession"?
Yes, prostitution. A few words about prostitution. How did that develop?
Simple: when men wanted sex, men had to have sex NOW. No bargaining, no
conditions, if men desires sex, wants to do it NOW. If it was the same
for women, there would have been no prostitution. What is prostitution
besides the obvious? Women can WAIT. They can wait, until certain other
conditions are met. Such as advantages, money, presents, whatever ELSE
women desired to have. That's is the proof that women don't desire sex
at the same level as men. That's how and why they were able to
manipulate with their sexuality, from the beginning of times (oldest
profession). 

Do women enjoy sex as much as men. Most probably not. Remember: why is
the enjoyment? So the male will keep doing until it's done, the female
stays still until it's done. Again, for the mechanism itself, the male
needs more insentive, and that's what is expressed in enjoyment. How
about orgasm? That's the signal that "it is done". Does BOTH individual
needs that signal? Not really. The male's ejaculation is the DONE.
That's what has to be signaled. In fact, it is interesting that females
also have orgasm, because from functional standpoint, it is really not
needed. But evolution probably put it in females too, to a certain
degree, so she won't stay there and wait further, but goes on her way
for whatever else (hunting, seeking food, whatever else). But the real
signal for the male, that it was DONE. 

Of course, the development of the human mind, the socialization,
rationalization of this biological process resulted in some
non-biological phenomenons, such as the concept of love, marriage and so
on, but that is a different issue, so I won't include those in this
subject. 

Part 3. 

As I mentioned it above, for thousands of years, people may not realized
all these as I stated it above, but they knew very well the result of
all these, that men was traditionally the "initiator", the "chaser", the
"active", the "agressor" and so on. What we hear sometimes even today,
that "women care more about the emotional aspects" is simply the
manifestation of the less libido and the ability to direct the attention
to some other aspects of the human relationship. 

Anyway.....the next important item: men's physical strength. Who knows
why, but we all know that the male of the human species is physically
larger, stronger. For thousands of years that simple biological fact
created a simple biological reality: men went hunting, women got
pregnant, delivered the babies, brought up the babies, stayed home, did
the preparation of the food men hunted down and brought home. Today's
feminists make the claim that "women were opressed". Nonsense. Up until
the industrial revolution and machines, the task-division was a
biological necessity, there was no way to swap tasks, because everybody
did what they were able to do the best, otherwise the species would have
starved. Men's agressive nature came from the hunting instinct. The
animalistic territorial instinct resulted in wars (another item which
would require long explanation, but that also doesn't belong here, so I
leave it out). In the task division obtaining the food was still primary
over the preparation of the food, and because of the physical strength
advantage men became the societal leaders. Yet, while men kept other men
as slaves, it is interesting (and critical) to observe, that women in
general didn't become de facto slaves of men (despite such feminist
claims). Why? For more than one reason, but among those one is very
significant: because of women's sexual ability to wait, postpone,
otherwise manipulate with sex. Yes, men could rape women, but spending
an entire life having sex by rape is not a pleasant alternative. Women
were able to compensate for men's physical advantage, by having the
sexual advantage (of being able to postpone sex, set conditions to allow
sex). And despite all feminist claims, women were not opressed, they
played the role as doing the best they could, just as men played the
role of doing the best they could. Men's physical strength given
advantage was balanced out by women's sexual advantage. And that's how
the world functioned for many thousands of years.

Part 4. 

And came the industrial revolution. In which men invented machines,
mostly for the purpose of making physical labor easier at first, later
not needed at all. And that is when the thousands of years of balance
tilted. As physical labor became less and less needed for society to
function, men's physical strength started to become redundant. In other
words, men's side of the thousands of years of balance began to shrink.
While women's sexual advantage (being able to postpone sex) did not
change one bit. I don't think that this ever became an intellectual
realization, and the results of this "balance tilt" started to show
spontaneously. Not much into the industrial revolution the first signs
of feminism began to appear. Yes, women did realize (not consciously,
but realized nevertheless), that men's physical strength advantage was
no longer there the way it was there for thousands of years. The chaotic
non-conscious way is well shown by the lack of any organized or
synchronized demands. I am not going to get into the details of the
feminist movement, no real need for that, because the bottom line is the
same anyway: women demanded more and more roles in society, what men
used to have only.

And they got it, and getting it. How? Why? For the very same ancient
reason: the ability to postpone and manipulate with sex. For the very
same ancient reason prostitution is called the oldest profession. More
and more women "sneak into" the societal structure next to some
influential men, near influential men, connected to influential men.
This is what I call "micro-prostitution". And as more and more women get
to influential positions, even THAT is needed less and less. 

Part 5. 

A pitstop, kind of a reminder. This entire line of thoughts would have
been defeated if we were only during the 60's. That is when women
suddenly came forth with the spectacular claim:"we desire and enjoy sex,
just as men do". The very basic concept is interesting, since such claim
would have been not needed, if the opposite of it wouldn't have been
common knowledge for thousands of years. But it was, and such claim made
sense. It was a happy decade for men, but it didn't last. The big
"sexual revolution" collapsed as quickly as it came. In fact, the exact
opposite began to take place. Sexual harrasment became a household
expression. Society began to punish men, for things what was accepted by
society for thousands of years, for things which were the source of
literature, music, art, and that is men's longing for women. It became a
"crime", if a men asked a woman for a date, she said no, and the man asked
her again. Then the new trend sneaked even into schools, where boys
acted the way they did for thousands of years toward girls. Rape became
the only crime, where proof was not really needed to convict men, simple
"credibility" became the determining factor. Rape becoming possible even
within the marriage, signaled the "beginning of the end".

Part 6. 

Yes, the industrial revolution, the technology which made men's physical
strength redundant, gave women an edge over men they never had before.
And they began to utilize that very well. The process is far from being
over. Right now women are obtaining total control over sex, the when,
the how, the why, and and all imaginable details. Women, in this
country, achieved a never heard before status, became a "protected
minority" despite they are half of the population. 

Is it over? Not quite. One could ask the question: how about the
intellectual power? After all, it was men who invented the world which
made all these possible. But men also invented computers which will
allow to many intellectual tasks simply "skipped". If men also had some
degree of average intellectual advantage, most will be neutralized by
the computers, just as machines neutralized the need for physical
strength. And at the end, all it will remain, is women's sexual
advantage to postpone, manipulate with sex which hasn't change since the
beginning of times. 

Part 7. 

Very simple. I forecast one century, or even less, before society will
be mostly female dominated. Men's huge disadvantage, willing to give
away just about anything for sex, women's huge advantage of not being
burdened by the same, is a difference which WILL radically alter society
as we know it. 

Gabor