Every Childlike Author needs a Playground.


Part 2: How Human Nature Shapes Society

On the off-chance you haven’t yet read Part 1 yet, you should. We both know you’re a person who takes the initiative to understand what’s going on around you, and going back to read it is proof. But if you’re not someone who likes to understand what’s going on around you, then you’re probably the kind of person who usually trips on the curb awkwardly when walking, which is embarrassing.

Whichever type you are, you’ve come this far, and that makes you a determined person, though possibly an awkward and oblivious determined person.

If you read Part 1, you should already know that our ancestors weren’t stupid.

Not only were our ancestors not stupid, they did smart things and took advantage of sexual differences between men and women. Whether or not you’re a creationist or an evolutionist, you know that these sexual differences existed naturally even before human history began, resulting in traditional gender roles that have persisted until today.

You also know, because you read Part 1, that 100 years isn’t long enough to reverse billions of years of evolution, nor will it do anything to change a fixed creation. The last 100 years is unique because technology has advanced so far and so quickly. Our technology has enabled men to become more feminine and women to become more masculine, but it is still not enough to change our basic human nature.

Whether you are a creationist or an evolutionist, you’ve already decided that human nature has been roughly the same for all of recorded history.

Of course you can disagree, but if you do, you probably haven’t read many old stories. A whole bunch of smart people, scholars and historians, have read these old stories, and they would all tell you the same thing: People who lived thousands of years ago were just like us. All of them.

Our ancestors were smart, and they were just like you. Their human nature was the same as your human nature.

Because they were smart and because their human nature was the same as ours, our ancestors almost certainly knew as much about human nature as you do. In fact, they probably knew more about human nature than you do. You may be thinking “Yeah right, that can’t be true,” just like numerous foreigners thought that some of the most mundane things about America couldn’t be true until they visited. The past, too, is like a foreign culture to us, filtered through its art and literature like any modern day culture. Just as Canadians understand more about U.S. culture than Africans do due to their closer proximity, our ancestors likely knew more about human nature than we do simply because they were closer to its origin than we are. If you disagree, by all means use your totally legitimate working time machine to visit the past and prove me wrong.

Most agree that at a basic level human nature is shaped by needs such as hunger, pain, and sex. These needs shape how humans behave on a larger scale and how they act together as a society.

The way our society is structured is influenced by how people meet basic needs, such as how they get food, how they stay healthy, and who they have sex with.

Knowing this, and knowing that our ancestors were both smart and likely knew more about human nature than we do, it is not difficult to put the information together to get a new picture of history.

But before we paint that picture, lets add into the mix a theory (one not even feminists believe in, it seems) that in prehistoric times the earliest development of human societies began as matriarchal societies, which are societies led by women. The theory goes that these matriarchal societies then disappeared and were replaced by patriarchal societies led by men.

From then on, throughout recorded history patriarchal societies dominated and ruled the world.

Now let’s summarize what we know. What we know is this: 1) Our ancestors took advantage of human sex differences. They played to their strengths because they were smart. 2) They understood human nature better than we modern humans do, because they were closer and more exposed to it. 3) Human nature has been the same throughout human history, and it is shaped by fundamental needs like food, health and sex. Further, the methods used to meet these needs naturally shape social structure. Finally, 4) We will be generous and agree with the dubious theory that human societies were matriarchies in prehistoric times, which then turned into patriarchies when people started writing things down.

What conclusion do you draw from your knowledge?

The conclusion is that societies led by women are not as effective as societies led by men.

Right about now you’re probably getting a little offended, maybe thinking I’m a sexist, or a misogynist, someone who hates or looks down on women. If so, aren’t you a little worried that your false accusations are limiting your thinking? I would be worried if I was falsely accusing myself as well, but instead I didn’t get offended at my thoughts and followed the tracks. The tracks led me to a reasonable conclusion. If you followed the same tracks I did, you made it to the reasonable conclusion. You weren’t derailed by the unreasonable or false accusations, which means you have a clear head on your shoulders.

The track is easy to follow, and you likely don’t need me to explain because you followed them too, but just for fun I will.

Our first track is our first piece of knowledge, that our ancestors were smart and played to their strengths, taking advantage of human sex differences. This means they did smart things and knew what worked well and what didn’t work well. They knew men were better at doing physical labor, and women were better at raising children, and that it didn’t work as well the other way around.

Add to this our second track, which is that they understood human nature better than we do. They understood that our human behavior was based on meeting our fundamental needs like hunger and sex, and that people used what worked best for them to meet those needs.

For their fundamental needs to be met, to have food, to be healthy, and to have sex, they needed to use the best system available to meet those needs by doing what worked well and by not doing what didn’t work well.

The best systems were different for men and women. Woman used less physical and more indirect means to get food, avoid pain, and have sex, while men used more physically direct methods. But what else do we know about the methods used to meet fundamental needs like hunger and sex?

The answer is our third track: The methods used to meet fundamental needs naturally shape social structure. These methods are different for men and women, and since a society led by women would primarily use less physical and indirect methods to meet these needs, we can safely say that a matriarchal society would do the same. Likewise, a patriarchal society would use more physically direct methods because they are led by men.

Finally we arrive at our conclusion with the addition of the fourth track. Though questionable, it is possible that long ago in prehistoric times human societies were led by women. But we know from actual recorded history that these matriarchal societies were soon replaced by societies led by men. At any rate, throughout history there are very few instances of matriarchal societies, and what few examples do exist did not last for very long. The cause for this is none other than human nature itself.

While women had to use the methods of persuasion, deception and even submission to survive, the more physically intimidating men would use direct physical means to survive. For example, in a food scarce environment, any woman who wanted to survive would have to hide or quietly steal their food (deception), persuade someone more powerful to give them food, or submit to someone more powerful in exchange for food. In contrast, a man would simply take food from someone weaker. Women could not directly compete with men, and instead had to rely on a male benefactor for both protection and provision.

The same dynamic is true for social structure.

A patriarchal society will use physically direct methods to survive, while a matriarchal society will use indirect means.

In other words, when competing for resources, a matriarchal society would quickly find itself at the mercy of a patriarchal society. In order to survive, a society led by women would need to use trade (persuasion), swear fealty (submission), or somehow trick the competing patriarchal society which would otherwise take the resources by direct force. For a weaker society, all of these options are a death sentence. Trade favors the stronger party, submission is to live under the conqueror’s rules, and tricks are hard to pull off. The result is that matriarchal societies disappeared almost as soon as they came into contact with a patriarchal society.

Societies led by women are just not as effective as societies led by men.

Societies led by women simply couldn’t compete with societies led by men due to their fundamentally different ways of surviving. The patriarchal societies, once they showed up in prehistoric times, were like the jockey who brought a Ferrari to a horse race. The horses just can’t compete with the natural speed and power of a sports car. If you want your society to survive, if you want your society to win the race, don’t bet on the losing horse. Bet on the Ferrari, and support a patriarchal society. You want men in power, because you want to win. You want men in power because matriarchies are way out of date and way to slow to keep up with other patriarchy.

Or you can stick with your horse. Don’t be too sad when it dies.

**This is the second installment of a several part series. The series will progress from early man to modern civilization, and draw conclusions about gender roles, society and culture. I will post links to each part in the series as they are completed.**

Part 1: Creationist or Evolutionist, You Need Traditional Gender Roles
Part 2: How Human Nature Shapes Society

Part 1: Creationist or Evolutionist, You Need Traditional Gender Roles

We both know the reason you’re reading this. You’re reading this because you want to know why you need traditional gender roles, possibly wondering what they can do for you in the modern age. Your willingness to read this means you have an open mind and possess the ability to improve your life without caring about what other people think, say, or do. You understand that human history is relevant and important to your modern world.

Whether or not you believe in a creator or in macro-evolution, you know it’s important to take a close look at how those beliefs define your thinking. In most cases, the different beliefs will result in divergent ideas and opinions, but in rare cases rational thought will converge to a similar conclusion.

In the case of social gender roles, regardless of base beliefs, your thinking will and should come to one conclusion:

Traditional gender roles are not only natural, but necessary.

By now you’re asking yourself how the origin of man is related to gender roles. It’s easy to come up with the same tired idea that gender roles stem from the lifestyle of primitive man: males hunted and women raised children.

However, there is an hidden premise to this example. The premise is that men and women differentiated before their primitive history began.

Males excelled at hunting and similar tasks due to their specialized masculine traits. Females excelled at raising children due to their specialized feminine traits. And these traits were specialized quite some time before primitive man began to hunt, gather, or farm.

However this specialization came about, it is important to remember the following:

Our ancestors weren’t stupid. They took advantage of inherent sexual differences and specializations to increase their odds of survival.

These differences and specializations were a direct result of evolutionary processes, creative design, or a combination of both. We could discuss the why and how for each of these three cases, but the answer isn’t important. What’s important is this:

Sexual differences and specialization is superior to every other alternative.

Evolution favors organisms with superior means of survival and reproduction. If there had been a superior alternative to sexual dimorphism in humans, human sexual dimorphism would likely not have persisted to date.

Likewise, from a creationist point of view, and assuming the creator was not malicious, there would be no real reason for humans to possess an inferior means of survival and reproduction.

The conclusion is the same from both standpoints:

Sexual dimorphism is both natural and inherent to the human species.

There are very few people who would argue with this, and those few who would are not too bright. One only needs to look at a man and a woman side by side to understand that there are clear physical differences.

While our ancestors didn’t possess the advanced technology we do, they, like you, were not stupid.

Our ancestors took notice of the obvious sexual differences and took advantage of them because it was the smart thing to do.

The advantages to survival that sexual differences provided to the human race gave natural rise to gender roles. Males, as the more physically intimidating party automatically assumed positions of power and leadership. At the same time, they were more expendable than a female, meaning that males were the group that literally spent their lives protecting the physically weaker females.

In contrast, females were less able to handle more physically demanding tasks, but were more naturally inclined to tasks related to raising offspring and self-preservation. Because women could not compete with men on a level playing field as a physically weaker sex, women excelled at using psychological means to increase their chances of survival using tools such as persuasion, deception, empathy and sympathy (feigned or real), using emotion to their own advantage, and outright submission.

Gender roles rose straight from physical differences between sexes, to the advantage of both men and women.

These gender roles resulted from men and women playing to their own strengths.

Our ancestors understood that without traditional gender roles, they would not survive.

They would be wiped out naturally by a harsh environment, or they would be wiped out by a people that did use traditional gender roles. They understood that without traditional gender roles they would lose their wars, lose out economically, and lose out to the larger populations of groups who were more successful using traditional gender roles.

Traditional gender roles are far from obsolete. They are still the cutting edge.

Evolutionist or Creationist, what you tacitly admit is that humans either evolved or were designed with major physical differences that work to their own advantage.

It would be foolish to work against and ignore such a huge natural advantage. If you do work against it, you or your children will ultimately find themselves at a disadvantage.

By working against evolution, you are refusing to evolve, and you will soon not be fit enough to survive.

By working against the creator’s design, your purpose as a creation is broken, and you must fix it or you will not survive.

Our advanced technology has made it easier for men to become more like women, and for women to become more like men, but this has only been true for the last 100 years.

One hundred years is too short for evolution to reverse several million years of prior evolution.

And if you are a creationist, 100 years of evolution won’t change a thing.

The natural advantages of male and female sex differences have not changed. Traditional gender roles optimize those advantages.

It is still to your advantage to act like a feminine woman, and it is still to your advantage to act like a masculine man. Doing so will increase your ability to survive, both literally and economically, and will also increase your chances of reproduction.

Embodying conventional feminine traits is the best strategy for a woman who wants the best possible man and the most resources, and embodying conventional masculine traits is the best strategy for a man who wants the best possible woman and even more resources.

If you want to maximize your life, make more money and live to the fullest, then the only option available to you is to embrace traditional gender roles. If you don’t, the poor dodos and the penniless dinosaurs are waiting for you on the other side.

**This is the first installment of a several part series. The series will progress from early man to modern civilization, and draw conclusions about gender roles, society and culture. I will post links to each part in the series as they are completed.**

Part 1: Creationist or Evolutionist, You Need Traditional Gender Roles
Part 2: How Human Nature Shapes Society

The Survival of America

In a May, 2014 post on the website American Renaissance, lawyer and public defender Michael Smith describes how blacks behave in court, and attempts to explain why so many of his clients are black and why they behave so poorly. The description is vivid and sadly unsurprising. His explanation too, is mostly correct. What interests me, however, is his apparent lack of understanding amid such an eye-opening environment. After informing the reader that the majority of his clientele are both black and unemployed (with sociopathic tendencies to boot), he goes on to say this:

I am a liberal. I believe that those of us who are able to produce abundance have a moral duty to provide basic food, shelter, and medical care for those who cannot care for themselves. I believe we have this duty even to those who can care for themselves but don’t. This world view requires compassion and a willingness to act on it.

My experience has taught me that we live in a nation in which a jury is more likely to convict a black defendant who has committed a crime against a white. Even the dullest of blacks know this. There would be a lot more black-on-white crime if this were not the case.

However, my experience has also taught me that blacks are different by almost any measure to all other people. They cannot reason as well. They cannot communicate as well. They cannot control their impulses as well. They are a threat to all who cross their paths, black and non-black alike.

I do not know the solution to this problem. I do know that it is wrong to deceive the public. Whatever solutions we seek should be based on the truth rather than what we would prefer was the truth. As for myself, I will continue do my duty to protect the rights of all who need me.

It is difficult to doubt the words of someone so clearly and intimately acquainted with the subject, yet it astounds me that the author’s welfare worldview is unchanged despite his close familiarity with the results of such a system. In other words, public defender Michael Smith believes that the working population procuring its own food, shelter, and medical care, should also be the serving maids and butlers for “those who can care for themselves but don’t.” This is a far cry from the original tenets used to build America, and the total opposite of the philosophy and policy implemented by another Smith in order to make the initial settlement in the New World a possibility. In the words of Captain John Smith, “He who does not work, will not eat.” Jamestown survived because of this policy, but without it America will not. Instead, we will continue to fund the sociopathic and the criminal who threaten our civilization.

The Childlike Author Feels… Contempt

Contempt [kuh n-tempt]
– the feeling with which a person regards anything considered mean, vile, or worthless; disdain; scorn.

Have you ever seen one of those legal thrillers in which the judge threatens to hold a character in contempt of court? I’ve always wondered why they use the term “contempt,” and so I’ve got two theories. Keep in mind that I’m no lawyer, and certainly no etymologist.

My first theory is based in the supposition that the justice of the peace is an honorable person. That’s why he or she is referred to as “Your Honor,” as in, “Yes, Your Honor, I did commit the murder with the bloody axe in evidence. I still plead innocent.” It turns out that a secondary definition of contempt is “the state of being despised; dishonor; disgrace.” (My personal favorite definition is “disapproval tinged with disgust.” Also, why the heck do I even have a favorite definition?) Anyway, it stands to reason that if someone present in court were to dishonor the judge, who is clearly honorable as his or her nickname suggests, then that someone doing the dishonoring would be contemptible, deserving of or held in contempt. Hence the court holds them in contempt.


The Childlike Author Feels… Ashamed

Ashamed [uhsheymd] – feeling shame; distressed or embarrassed by feelings of guilt, foolishness, or disgrace.

Feeling ashamed for something we’ve done is an emotion we’ve all experienced unless we’re sociopaths. If you are a sociopath, I’d like to recommend a career in espionage—you’d be great at it.

I, however, am not a sociopath. But I digress (and besides, most sociopaths would claim the same thing—that they are not sociopaths).

CLICK to Enlarge Image

CLICK to Enlarge Image

During those experiences when I’ve felt ashamed, they were primarily a result of other people. No, I’m not blaming other people, I’m merely saying it’s difficult to feel foolish, or disgraced, or guilty when you are alone.