Originally posted at The Spearhead.
Although I’ve got to admit it’s a rare quality, one of the things I see as a positive male attribute is intellectual honesty. Perhaps this is even more valuable than raw talent when it comes to the spectacular achievement gap between the genders — you simply can’t do something like split the atom if you’re talking about “subjectivities” or somesuch feminist nonsense.
So if we men are to be intellectually honest, and we hold that men and women are not exactly equal, we ought to consider the possibility that women may actually have some strengths that we do not. Sure, we’re constantly told that that women are just as good as men at anything traditionally dominated by men, and that’s clearly nonsense, but could there be certain areas – besides the obvious, such as breastfeeding and caring for infants – in which women truly are stronger as a sex?
I think there are, but in female dominated societies they tend to be put to destructive rather than constructive use. For example, women have a much keener eye when it comes to social environments, and a clear edge in recognizing the subtleties of human relationships. While listening to women, I am astounded by how they can talk for hours in the greatest detail about people they know, going from one to the next in quick succession, updating their social knowledge databases and taking stock of their relative position. Their interest in the subject exceeds mine greatly, and although it would be tempting to dismiss it as mere gossip and frivolity, this must serve an important purpose and give women some strong advantages in some situations.
When it comes to building coalitions within a social group or tribe, women are likely better, and throughout history one can find many examples of men whose mothers intervened to secure some benefit for their sons that made their careers. Bill Gates is an example of this. It so happened that his mother was friends with the wife of a powerful IBM executive, and the two helped a young “Trey” secure the IBM contract that eventually led to Microsoft’s dominance in the operating system market, and Gates’ status as the world’s richest man for some time.
Good wives can also be of great value to ambitious husbands, and sisters have been known to help brothers out. On the other hand, having a mother, wife or other female relative with a tendency to lash out at the men in her life, or otherwise disparage and belittle them, can have severe consequences for a man, as many of us know all too well.
In a more traditional society in which men are socially dominant, it behooves women to support the men who are close to them for their own personal benefit. However, as cultures and societies mature and age they have a tendency to become more stratified, and the majority of men have little if any formal power. This is where we find ourselves today, with a few highly dominant men atop a mass of peons, and in the West it’s even worse than usual; the powers that be don’t even bother to pay lip-service to traditional male status in families, and actively declare their intention to snuff it out permanently.
This has led to a consensus amongst women, especially the non-thinking sort that comprise the majority, that men have no value besides their immediate possessions, their sperm, and their physical utility. Because of this sense that the men in their lives are expendable, women tend to justify using them and then abandoning them when they are no longer convenient; there is no longer a sense that her value in the world is tied to the value of the men in her life, and in many cases she may even temporarily profit from destroying them and then declaring herself a victim.
With this attitude, women may come to feel that the appropriate use of their significant social skills and power is to dismember the men around them in a social analogy to the physically powerful serial killer who uses brute, masculine strength to overcome female victims and hack them to bits. So we find women slandering their husbands in court, adult women suddenly “remembering” (with the help of a feminist therapist) that their father was a pervert, and mothers hamstringing their sons before the boys are old enough to stand on their own two feet. Women can do these things because they are more socially aware, and they can build coalitions, sharpen their knives and butcher their hapless opponents before they even know it’s coming. In previous times they did not often engage in this behavior, because to destroy the men around them was to destroy themselves. Times have definitely changed.
Because of the dysfunction caused by an unnatural state of relations within families and between the sexes, women’s natural strengths have come to take on a sinister cast, as they have at various points in history when hysteria rose to prominence and began to wreak havoc on the delicate construct of civilization. However, it’s important to recognize that some of these distinctively feminine traits that we suspect and, at times, despise, need not serve evil in every case. Rather, we ought to recognize that women’s strengths must serve some purpose, and in a functional society could be a source of communal strength rather than a weapon of social violence.
Just as a man’s physical strength and peaks of passion can take on a very ugly countenance in some circumstances, a woman’s social interest, awareness and engagement can be seen as gossiping, rumormongering and scheming when put to ill use. Unfortunately for women, they are beginning to live up to the ancient, unflattering assessments of scores of philosophers, prophets and sages, and their reputation is beginning to take a hit. A functional, cooperative society is a great boon to women’s collective reputation, whereas in one such as the contemporary West, where Civil Society has all but vanished, their strengths become evils rather than virtues.