My feminist school book War, Territory, Resources and Males

--


(CLICK THE IMAGE ABOVE FOR LARGER VIEW) In the first photo above is an exerpt from my Women's Studies book that represents the deep misunderstanding of men and our essential nature. Look carefully at the manurisms, crossed arms of the boy, the rolled eyes of the girl, the keyboard of the boy etc. What does this picture tell you? The second image illustrates feminist view that male male competition and the advent of warfare are a social construct and suggest that men are caught in some sort of strife in a transition to the feminist ideal. Feminism vehemently refuses to believe in basic biological principals that do indeed explain our TRUE natures. It is content to elevate a vision of a female supremacy and an idealistic utopia that could exist if only men were not violent beasts, oppressors, destroyers and victimizers of women. Feminism defines feminine existence and experience from this central base of thought. It indeed defines women's experiences and being as something that is in contrast to this beastly thing called man.

Here is the truth: Male destructivness is in proportion if not infinitesimal to male constructiveness. If men did mainly harm with our aggression we would be in a world of shit. Men are designed to utilize resources to support life. To build and support, provide and protect. This is male aggression at its finest and most predominant. Male aggression is a beautiful thing, men are wonderful and beautiful and we should be so grateful for their sacrifices.

This portrayal of men as brutes and destroyers is very deeply hurtful to me. When I am told this by Women's Studies I feel I am being told I am this by all women. I feel their voice represents all women and my heart is broken. All the little dreams I had of girls and women when I was a little boy is shattered and made to be shamed. Please stop this. You are trying to and will create the very monsters of which you speak. This theme of men as violent oppressors, women as victims and other feminist ideological themes continue throughout the book. It is taught that marriage is a prison. These views are promoted by feminists and women that came before it:

"The institution of marriage is the chief vehicle for the perpetuation of the oppression of women; it is through the role of wife that the subjugation of women is maintained."(-From Marlene Dixon, "Why Women's Liberation?) and point to historical, legal and social inequalities of wedding, family life, and divorce. Individuals such as Sheila Cronan argue that "Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." (From Sheila Cronan, "Marriage," in Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds.,p. 219,)

Feminists thought instrumental in creating our current epidemic:
Kate Millett, author of Sexual Politics (1969)
Germaine Greer, author of The Female Eunuch (1970)
Marilyn French, author of The Women's Room (1977)
Jessie Bernard, author of The Future of Marriage (1972)
Shulamith Firestone, author of The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (1970)

PLEASE ALSO SEE THE ALARMING GRAPHS BELOW IN MY BLOG POST "MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE"


I am in the process of extracting images and texts and will post them here when I get them scanned.

The perpetuation of the idea that socialization alone creates male male competition and that warfare is a result of the patriarchy,is false. The innate tendencies of men and our biological role to the mating pair bond and human nature must be understood by our young women and boys alike. That men fight for territory and resources FOR WOMEN and not to oppress them. That women indeed are attracted to males of high resource potential and the reverse is not true.

One difference that feminism is eggar to accept between men and women is the difference of male aggression. In a book entitled "The Psychology of Women Half the Human Experience" the question is posed "If males were not socialized to be aggressive would there still be wars"

First of all male aggression is not only reinforced, expressed and socialized in men they are inherently biologically aggressive and competitive between each other and biologically preoccupied with the acquisition of territory, resources, and the intelligent utilization of resources. All of the lines between countries are drawn in the blood and competition of men to establish sovereign territory. Who wins the war depends on which tribe is more resourcefully successful to begin with. The equation being INTELLIGENCE AND GENETIC HEALTH = RESOURCEFULLY SUCCESSFUL & UTILIZATIONALLY SUCCESSFUL OF THOSE RESOURCES = REPRODUCTIVELY SUCCESSFUL. These traits determine which males win a war and directly correspond to numerical troop superiority, better supplies of war resources, better weapons and intelligent tactics
that trump and succeed in fending off and killing the less successful males. War is a natural selective process among men not unlike male-male competition in other species. Please understand that war and male male competition takes place all over the animal kingdom from insects to the highest form of mammal. Male chimpanzees have been known to form raiding parties to attack and kill males of other groups.



I will then tell you that when we discovered the America's the Indian men had weapons as well, coincidence, I don't think so.. Male male competition is natural and warfare is an extension of this. You will see that discovered tribes who live in sufficient economic and social disconnect from other tribes do indeed commit war.

The solution to our problem is to integrate our countries both socially and economically and to create modular collectives that aggregate and express human intelligence and will. To personify ourselves as a collective. Once we are integrated truly with other nations the lines between nations will cease to exist. It is my contention that we are not there yet. That if we are indeed capable of creating this system it will save mankind from war and extinction. War stems from competition and uneven opportunities for competitive advantage among males and nations. Someday attacking IRAQ will by like attacking ourselves. And if it is done it will be like attacking an aboration, a cancer on the collective. If war in the future is done it will be unilaterally by the collective against ITSELF. It will become it's own incentive not to. We have not integrated as a species at this point and exsist in quite disbanded opposing collectives. Our only hope as a species it to become in many ways THE PEOPLE OF EARTH. To infact continue upon what men have built and erase the last of the territorial lines between us. Globalization and the free trade concept is real,has some flaws yet is the proper direction for our species. We are in a state of flux and massive shifts of equalization. Ultimately under agreed uniform conditions inequalities in production costs etc will even out. Economies will not measure themselves by consumption-production-consumption-waste cycles but a circular and sustainable model. Competitive advantage will ultimately only be expressed between individuals but not at the collective level. We will be truly united toward the ends of which we seek as a species. War will not be made unnecessary until we achieve these ends. War will always be apart of being human but its causes can be prevented through a globalized and united competitive advantage infrastructure in which males have an equal opportunity to compete.




I know that the feminist ideology (as I have directly experiences in my Women's Studies class) teaches to mistrust all forms of science as androcentric propaganda put forth by "The Patriarchy". This creates a fracture and element of mistrust in the minds of women and young girls that serves as the basis for control of the minds of women and indeed men to further their political agenda. These bitter politics and radical ideology have NO PLACE IN OUR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION.

I ASK YOU ALL TO TRY TO OBTAIN A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF OUR ESSENTIAL NATURES THROUGH MODERN SCIENCE. I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOU ALL TO A BOOK ENTITLED: Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating BY PROF. DAVID M. BUSS. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE MANY WOMEN IN THIS FIELD OF SCIENCE SUCH AS PROF. HELEN FISHER AND PROF. SARAH B. HRDY WHO ARE INSTRUMENTAL IN BRINGING WOMEN BACK TO THE HEARTS OF MEN AND TO A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF THEMSELVES AND WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN AND A MAN OR WOMAN. EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY AND EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY ARE IMPORTANT AREAS OF SCIENCE THAT HELP US TRUELY UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE THE WAY WE ARE,WHO WE ARE AS MALE AND FEMALE AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THAT WE ARRIVED HERE TOGETHER AND NOT AS A RESULT OF A "PATRIARCHY" OR COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUS MALE INTENTION TO DOMINATE AND VICTIMIZE WOMEN.


"In the pursuit of a mate, women prefer men who possess money, resources, power and high social status, while men tend to seek attractive, youthful women who will remain sexually faithful. This finding emerged from a global survey by Buss and colleagues of 10,047 persons in 37 cultures, from Australia to Zambia. In a provocative study, Buss, a University of Michigan psychology professor, attributes these differences to ingrained psychological mechanisms which he argues are universal across cultures and rooted in each gender's adaptive responses over millennia of human evolution."

I WANT TO STRESS THAT THERE WERE ALSO OTHER PREDOMINANT TRAITS SOUGHT BY EACH SEX OTHER THAN THESE BUT THE ABOVE WERE IN THE UPPER RANKINGS OF THE STUDIES FINDINGS.