"It sounds like you hate the patriarchy," Zac smirked.
"As I said before, I don't inherently have a problem with the patriarchy. Just like I don't inherently have a problem with a monopoly market, where the business in power continues to innovate and improve themselves so they are meeting or exceeding the increasing needs of all of its consumers. If everyone is happy, then there is not a problem. But everyone is not happy in our current patriarchy. And what I do have a problem with is the sense of entitlement from men."
"Entitlement? Seriously?" Zac laughed. "Don't talk to me about the entitlement of men, unless you want to talk about the entitlement of women. Modern women are 'strong, independent feminists,' up until the moment the check comes. Then suddenly they're all traditional, and feel entitled to a man's resources."
"Oh, the entitlement of modern women is definitely a thing," I replied. "And it's not that surprising. We've been taught to hate the patriarchy, yet we're biologically programmed to be looked after, which is why women are attracted to men who make more money than them. Modern feminism tells us we're completely equal to men, yet the vast majority of women unapologetically want to be with a superior man. The logical implication, then, is that women are not equal to men on the same axis — they want to feel inferior to a powerful man. They want a benevolent patriarchy, at least in their romantic relationship. If they didn't want to feel inferior, they would be attracted to men that made less money than them, had less drive, were less intelligent, were weaker, were lower status, etcetera."
"You're quite critical of your sex-"
"No. I'm just critical of ideology. Materialism is an ideology constructed by men, and I will point out the logical flaws underpinning it. Modern feminism — and I'm talking about the more aggressive, mainstream wave of feminism here — is an ideology constructed by women. It serves me in some ways, but it is also logically inconsistent.
If you're going to construct an ideology, that's fine. But at least play by your own rules. You can't selectively apply your rules where they suit you, and ignore them where they don't. I just think that society should do some quality control before installing buggy operating systems into the minds of its population.
And that's not to say that living in a feminist paradigm is wrong, or bad. Without true, first-wave feminism, I wouldn't have been able to spend the past five years reverse-engineering the universe for the benefit of humanity. Feminism is essential in areas where the patriarchy is truly oppressive, and women are not given equal opportunity to pursue their own happiness.
It's just that you can't have your cake, and eat it too. Like, if a woman wants to shun traditional patriarchy and be the superior CEO in a relationship, that's fine — but she shouldn't expect the employee to look after her. If she wants the power, she has to accept the responsibility that comes with it.
Or many women want perfect equality in a relationship — like being co-CEOs with their partner. This is also a perfectly valid way to experience a partnership. But then those same women want to be in a 'power couple' relationship with a high-earning, traditionally masculine 'alpha' male, and alphas want to lead. That's what makes them alphas. If you don't want to be submissive to a leader because you're a 'strong, independent woman,' then that's okay — but you're probably not going to end up with an alpha.
This is just basic psychology. Anyone who has run a business knows the risk involved in hiring a competent entrepreneur as an employee. Leadership is in their blood, and even if they love your business, they'll probably leave at some point to start their own. They want to experience themselves as a leader, and in order to do that, they need someone to lead. Their competence is an asset, but it is also a flight risk. That's why trying to muzzle and subdue a masculine man's leadership instincts may work for a while, but it will probably cause problems in the long term. If you have a powerful racehorse, you need to let him run."
Zac looked at me suspiciously. "How come you know so much about male psychology?"
"Zac," I sighed, "I've spent the past decade as a young woman, learning to navigate a patriarchal world. I watch, and I listen, and I observe patterns. If I'm interacting with a lot of men, then, logically, understanding male psychology is a very useful skill. And I don't mean that in a manipulative way. I just mean that you can get a lot more out of life by understanding how people in general, and men in particular, want to feel, and then helping them feel that way. This is exactly what entrepreneurs do: they figure out how their customers want to feel, and then they deliver a product or service that assists them in feeling that way.
Plus, my mother is an excellent negotiator, and she taught me two things: firstly, information is leverage, and leverage is power. If you know what people want — not what they've been told they should want, or what they think they want, but what they really want — you can give it to them. So if a man wants to feel like a respected leader, provider and protector, and you want to be in a relationship with that man, then you add value to his life by assisting him in feeling that way. Relationships are all about giving, not receiving. The better you are at assisting people in experiencing the version of themselves that they want to experience, the more value you'll receive back. This applies to everything in life.
And I'm not talking about being inauthentic, becoming something you're not, or losing yourself in the service of others. We've already discussed how toxic martyrdom is. I'm talking about crafting mutually beneficial exchanges of value."
"So it's just surprize-minimization, again?" Zac asked.
"Yes!" I grinned. "Attraction is all about polarity, and polarity is a mathematical consequence of surprise-minimization. I can explain this using a yin-yang symbol. If you place the masculine half of the yin-yang symbol in a system, you'll notice that surprise is generated in the shape of its complement. In order for a man to physically experience his masculinity, he needs to partner with a woman who wants to physically experience her femininity."
"The more extreme someone's polarity is, the more extreme their opposite polarity will be. For example, to have a physical experience of being extremely tall, I need to experience myself relative to the opposite extreme (i.e. being extremely short). Next to an extremely short person, I can experience myself as being extremely tall. Next to a person who is the same height as me, I can only experience myself as being neutral."
"The same principle applies to relationships. If a masculine man pairs up with a masculine woman, he can't experience his masculinity, and the relationship will probably fall apart. The strong attraction between people is caused by surprise minimization."
"Of course," I continued, "this is the same reason why buyers are attracted to sellers who have what they want. If I want to experience myself as relaxed, and someone is selling a product that assists me in experiencing myself as relaxed, then that product will find its way into my reality. This is also why money is attracted to people with an abundance mindset, or why victims are attracted to perpetrators. It's also why people find their 'soulmate' — someone who seems to fit them perfectly.
Following this principle, the more masculine a man is, the more extreme his energetic 'shape' is. As a result, he will pair up with a more feminine woman, who also has a complementary curve to her energetic 'shape.'"
I continued. "If a man's sense of masculinity is tied to his ability to lead, provide for and protect his wife and family — which it is, from a purely evolutionary perspective — then he can only physically experience his self-concept by pairing up with a woman who allows him to play that role.
The converse is also true. If a woman's sense of femininity is tied to her ability to be love, and to freely nurture, support and care for others — which it is, from a purely evolutionary perspective — then she can only have a physical experience of her own consciousness by pairing up with a man who will protect her from the competitive harshness of the world, and leave her free to play that softer, more supportive role.
Now, I want to stress that women don't have to be archetypically feminine, and men don't have to be archetypically masculine. People can be whoever they want to be. If a woman wants a high-powered, stressful, competitive career — then that's amazing, if that makes her happy. Just because a woman is more archetypically masculine, it doesn't make her any less of a woman. Not every woman seeks fulfilment through marriage and children, so our society needs to get over this idea that there is something wrong with a woman if she is single by choice, and genuinely happy.
And if a man wants to be a stay-at-home dad, then that is also amazing, if that's how he wants to experience himself in this lifetime. Being a stay-at-home dad does not, in any way, make you less of a man. It just makes you less traditional, from an evolutionary perspective. People are multi-dimensional, and possess these energies to different degrees. The same dynamics even apply to same-sex relationships, and business partnerships — typically, there is one person who is the dominant leader, and one who is the submissive supporter. So this has nothing to do with me dictating how people should live, or what choices they should make.
I'm just saying that there are mathematical consequences to those choices. As women become more competitive and masculine, men will naturally become more feminine to reduce the surprise in the system, and give women a physical experience of their masculine energy. Again, this is not a good thing or a bad thing. If women like experiencing themselves as dominant, then we should keep doing what we're doing.
But, based on what I've observed, women don't like the mathematical consequences of their decisions. For example, I've noticed in our modern society that women are allowed to openly want certain traditionally masculine qualities in a man — height, muscles, money, status, etc. But if men say that they want a traditionally feminine woman who will stay home and raise the kids, and support his career, he is shamed for being misogynistic. But he is not misogynistic. He is just a man. Men have needs, too. If women are allowed to select men based on traditional notions of masculinity, then men are perfectly within their right to select women based on traditional notions of femininity. If us women want equality, then this is equality.
To take this idea further, men have historically suppressed the needs of women by convincing them that it's wrong for them to want an education, independence, or a purpose outside the home. But women have recently done the same thing to men, convincing them that it's wrong to want a woman who'll be a pretty, supportive, fertile companion.
Here's the thing: people want what people want. You can try to convince them that they don't want it, but they secretly do. Any attempt to suppress a man or a woman's needs is an attempt to artificially manipulate what would otherwise be a self-organizing free market. And the world has watched many examples of what happens when a central authority tries to control a free market by dictating who is allowed to want what, and for how much. It creates an energetic imbalance that results in misery and tyranny, and will eventually correct itself in a fit of chaos.
Which brings me to the second thing my mother taught me about negotiation: Win-Win or No Deal. If everyone is not winning in a transaction, don't do the deal. If women aren't willing to help men experience themselves as archetypal men, yet they expect men to make them feel like archetypal women, then they're entitled.
And I know this all sounds really unromantic, but it's actually not. It's incredibly romantic. It's the key to good relationships, whether they be romantic or otherwise: learn the art of making people happy in a way that also makes you happy. The more surprise you can minimize for someone, the more attracted they'll be to you.
And this isn't always a positive thing, by the way. Like, if you haven't dealt with your emotional shit, you'll attract partners that minimize your surprise, and give you a physical experience of your suppressed emotional shit. That's why people think they've fallen in love, when they've actually fallen in trauma. Dysfunctional people can be insanely attracted to each other because together, they can have a physical experience of dysfunction.
So, in conclusion, yes. I think us modern women are entitled. We are going through teething issues, trying to understand the balance between our newfound power, and the responsibility and accountability that comes with it. And I obviously can't speak for an entire gender, but there also seems to be a very strong tension between what we want on a subconscious, instinctual level, and what we've been told we should want on a conscious, logical level.
But the same can be said about men — and not all men, obviously. I'm generalizing here. But, as a woman, I have noticed that men seem to feel entitled to my respect."
"Respect?"
"Yes," I smiled. "Now, like selflessness, the concept of 'respect' is open to misinterpretation. I'm not talking about basic respect for people. Like, I could meet anyone and be respectful and kind towards them, simply because they are a human being and treating people that way is one of my values.
But that kind of respect is very different to the respect I have for a competent leader. And, throughout my life, I've come to believe that there is something in the male ego that feels entitled to that kind of respect from a young woman. Like, just because you have a penis and I do not, I should automatically respect you in the same way that I respect a leader.
And look, I get it. It makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective. In a patriarchal culture, men have traditionally been the leaders with all the power. If they had all the power, they had all the responsibility, too. And if they upheld all of their responsibilities, then they should be entitled to my respect as a competent leader — in the same way that I would respect a CEO who was a competent leader, and was meeting all my needs.
But men are not automatically entitled to this kind of respect from me, any more than women are entitled to a man's resources. Men have to earn my respect, and they earn it with competence."
"So, men earn respect by acquiring resources?" Zac asked.
"Resources are just an inevitable side-effect of competence," I replied. "So it's not the resources, per se. It's the level of competence required to acquire those resources. Like, if you're a man with a lot of money, and you earned that money yourself, you've demonstrated competence. Or if you're a man with much less money, but you broke free from the vicious cycle of poverty you were born into, you've also demonstrated competence. If you, Zachary Borrowdale, lost your house and your money and resources tomorrow, I'd still view you as a competent man, worthy of my respect. I respect you for who you are, not what you own — and I've respected you for the past eight years, way before you had any physical signs of success. You were a broke bartender when we met. Material things come and go, but a competent person can always gain back everything they lost. Plus, you teach me things and make me laugh, and that adds a lot of value to my life.
So, acquiring resources is not the only type of competence. A healthy body, a strong mind, skills, mission, purpose, vision, charisma, confidence, passion, kindness, wisdom, humour, generosity, self-awareness, assertiveness, strong morals — these are all competencies. My ex, Jesse, was extremely competent at karate. He became a sensei when he was, like, sixteen, and it was always a privilege and a pleasure to watch a competent person like him hone his craft. Plus, if you ever attacked me, he'd have you subdued in a headlock before you could even blink-"
"Good to know-"
"To win without even fighting — now, that's the kind of competence I aspire to," I grinned. "So, let's tie this back to the biblical story of Genesis. Despite what the Bible might suggest, men are not entitled to my respect or obedience as a woman, simply because I'm a woman. But I'm quite happy to be respectful and obedient to a competent leader."
"You? Obedient?" Zac laughed. "That's a good joke."
"I don't mean 'obedient' in a slave-like way. I couldn't be obedient to a tyrant, because I wouldn't respect a tyrant. I mean obedient in the same way that employees are obedient to the agenda and vision of a competent CEO. In the labor market, competent leaders paint a vision for the future and inspire employees to follow them. Not everyone wants to deal with the stress and responsibility of running their own business, so there are plenty of people who are happy to be obedient to the agenda of a competent leader, in exchange for security (i.e. being provided for). If the leader fails to meet the employee's needs, or the employee thinks they can do a better job on their own, the employee can always leave and start their own business. If they do that, though, they are their own leader, and therefore hold full responsibility for the success or failure of their venture.
This is why I don't inherently have a problem with the patriarchy. I personally don't want to lead, and I'm pretty hopeless at acquiring resources. If I had to be the main breadwinner in a relationship, I'd probably acquire some bread and then turn it into an art project. I'm just not a very practical person, and I'm self-aware enough to know that. If I had it my way, I'd spend all day playing with everything: ideas, people, children, animals, words, code.
Hence, I'm in a situation where I'm quite happy to lead my own life as an independent woman in my twenties while I figure out who I am, develop my character, and determine what qualities I value in a partner. If I'd have settled down in my early twenties, I'd probably be married to an asshole right now. In fact, the particular man I'm thinking of once told me, 'I have a feeling you're going to marry really young.' I think that was his way of saying, 'you're so soft and innocent and naive, that you'd settle for a man like me, who can walk all over you.'
But now, in my late twenties, I'm not a doormat anymore. And if I met a man who inspired me with a vision for our future, and he could demonstrate his competence as a leader, and I trusted that he could meet my needs better than I could on my own, and I loved him — then I'd follow him to the ends of the earth. I'd much rather be the sorceress standing beside a king and a warrior, than be the warrior myself. I want that kind of patriarchal dynamic. Modern feminism would tell me that's oppressive, and I'm being weak for being submissive to a man. But I'm not weak — I'm self-aware and smart.
I mean, have these feminists ever tried being the CEO of a company, where employees are submissive to them, and they are responsible for their wellbeing? Being the boss is not sunshine and rainbows. If feminists think that my preferring a patriarchal relationship is weak, then they must also think that every employee in the world is weak. It's the same logic applied to two separate situations.
I think the feminists are conflating submissiveness with passivity. A valuable employee is not passive — they have opinions, and they contribute their skills for the betterment of the company. But at the end of the day, the power and the responsibility rests on the CEO. They've trusted the CEO to lead them to a better future, and they are loyal to that CEO because they were extremely picky about which company they chose to join. For women who want to assume a more traditional gender role in a patriarchal relationship, there are devastating consequences for choosing poorly, especially if you're completely dependent on your partner as a provider. I would only hand my power over to a man who had demonstrated extreme moral competence and responsibility in his own life. But, like in the labor market, the more value you offer a CEO, the pickier you can be.
Besides, I personally love enabling people on their quests. There is such a sense of joy that comes from helping someone else grow into the grandest version of themselves, and having them appreciate your support in return. I'm like a sage: friends and strangers come to me and I help them help themselves, then send them on their merry way. I think it would be lovely to play that role full-time for my husband, my children, and my community, as long as my needs were being met in return. What's so oppressive about valuing love as your highest priority?
See, here's the thing: if you lined up every possible option for my future in front of me, and then gave me free will to choose anything I wanted, this is the option I would select to optimize my long-term happiness. I would take all of my creative energy, and solely focus it on creating a happy marriage, a happy family, and a happy community while my husband focused on his career and took care of 'the practicalities of life.'
But this is where the merits of feminism do come into play. As soon as a man tries to put me in a little box by telling me that motherhood and supporting a husband is what I should be devoting my life to, or that it's all I'm good for, or capable of — is the moment I tell him to fuck off. I could intellectually gut entire armies of men, but competing with men, and their egos, is exhausting, and I don't like being exhausted. Just because I don't want to do something, and it makes me miserable — doesn't mean I couldn't do it if the task was placed upon my shoulders. Men should not mistake my femininity for stupidity, vacuousness or weakness — but in my personal experience, our society still conflates the two.
I mean, listen to this drivel from the Bible..."
Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing — if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
The Bible
I rolled my eyes. "Women shouldn't teach men, because men obviously know everything. Like, obviously we live an a materialist paradigm. Never mind the fact that men have spent the past century failing to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, yet when a woman suggests non-dualism as a solution, the 'rational' men call it 'mystical woo woo.'
Or what about this gem..."
The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
The Bible
"So, according to the Bible — and remember, our Western society is built upon this misogynistic slop — I, as a woman, have nothing important to say, because men are the only people capable of having useful opinions, and all I'm good for is childbearing. And if I do want to learn something, I should only attain that knowledge from a male source, thus ensuring I get a purely masculine perspective — because that is the only perspective that matters. We can't have women — gasp! — being intellectually curious and thinking for themselves.
Ironically, the men who spout this patronizing bullshit are incapable of producing any original thought, seeing as their source of knowledge is a book written thousands of years ago by other men who also benefit from the quiet subservience of women. And yet these men expect me to respect their sheep-like thought-processes? No. Just no. I cannot respect a man who can't think for himself, and lives his life according to illogical dogma instead of his own bespoke, well-thought-out value system. These misogynists have the IQ of a brick, and yet they expect me to respect them as cognitively superior because they happen to have a penis. Now that's entitlement. I can smell egotistical stupidity a mile away, and it is a repugnant odour.
I subscribe to a purer form of feminism that values my equal worth (not my equal nature) as a woman, and acknowledges the fact that I am a multi-dimensional person with dreams and aspirations and curiosities and interests and an intense need to occupy myself with intellectually stimulating projects so my brain doesn't rot. If you placed me in the 1950s and tasked me with cooking and cleaning the house all day, every day, for my entire life, with no variety or ability to change my destiny — I would chew up the carpet like a bored puppy. But one of my dreams also happens to be getting married, raising a family, and supporting a competent partner — because supporting people makes me happy. It is my choice.
Yet as soon as men make it my predetermined obligation, I will go and serve myself instead. They can take all of their 'superior' masculine cleverness, and use it to build a quiet, obedient, one-dimensional, opinion-less machine to bear and raise their children — because I'm sure as hell not going to be complicit in propagating their genes, and misogynistic belief systems, into the world. I will not devote my life to a patronizing patriarchy who doesn't see or appreciate my multi-dimensional complexity as a woman.
Now, luckily, most men in modern Western society don't subscribe to this kind of warped religious view of women. Hence, this is not a serious problem for me. But I am pointing out why modern feminism is a perfectly valid response to a society that has historically held these Biblical values. The feminist ideology, in its current form, is somewhat misguided and logically inconsistent — but you can also see how it's just an emotional overcorrection for millennia of very serious oppression. Marie Curie was almost denied her Nobel Prize due to these beliefs and values. And when you tell an entire gender that they're too stupid to accomplish anything other than doing the laundry, of course they are going to want to compete with you to prove you wrong. The patriarchy bought this man-hating wave of modern feminism on themselves when they put intelligent, capable women inside tiny, little boxes — and then told them to stay quiet and docile, like good little pets.
But, circling back to my earlier point — I, personally, do not hate men. In fact, in order to explore and experience all of my chaotic feminine energy, I need the complete opposite of that in my life: I need a strong, masculine man that I can love, and admire, and support as he expands our kingdom. I need a benevolent patriarchy, or I won't be able to experience all the different facets of myself that I want to experience in this lifetime. And yes, I said need. I don't just want a man. I need one. Without a man, I can't self-actualize.
So just like employees are happy to trade their independence for the stability provided by a competent leader, I'm also happy to trade my independence for the stability provided by a competent man that I've chosen. Two competent people with complimentary powers are better than one, and I am a much better sorceress than I am a warrior. I care about my happiness more than I care about my ego's desire to be 'a strong, independent woman who can take care of herself.'
But alas, I have not met a warrior like that yet. And until I do, I will be the warrior of my own life. So, what I'm trying to communicate is this: if men want to maintain the patriarchy because their masculinity is tied to feeling powerful and respected, then they better demonstrate that they are competent masters of their own ship. If they can't even lead themselves, why on earth would I, as a woman, tie my fate to their stagnant or sinking vessel?"
