44. BATTLE OF THE SEXES

I begin with the premise that it doesn’t need to be a battle. I say vive la difference!

The problem as I see it is that strong women who have a grudge against men are making their voices heard and want for all women what they want and are capable of for themselves. They are, ironically, quick to call men misogynists. Up to the nineteen-sixties, granted, First World women were subjugated and needed liberation, but no longer. They are now free to choose what they want to do with their lives. Attitudes in some cases have been slow to change, but in others attitudes are dangerously revolutionary. However, you cannot legislate attitudes. Sometimes legislation entrenches attitudes in reaction.

Normal healthy males have a strong protective instinct towards women and children, but many women now squash that protective instinct. A woman who is strong and healthy will refuse a seat on a bus as though the offer were an insult, and a gentleman withdraws, and considers before making a similar offer to another woman who may be in need of a seat. Such gestures of rebuke by womenfolk lessen the protective instinct.

The constant insistence on equality, or the claim that women are as strong as men, or can do anything men can do, or even can do without men, lessens the innate feeling of protectiveness of males towards women, makes them uncomfortable and uneasy. It makes them feel that way because it is wrong thinking.

An effective male role model who supports and protects the females in a family reinforces the protective instinct in male offspring. In a household where a female is the head and does the protecting, or the male partner is ineffective, especially in the modern climate of society, a son may grow up with minimal or no protective instinct. I suspect the number of households in Australia now headed by women may be one reason for the modern prevalence of domestic violence.

Males are on the whole physically stronger than females. We should not, as I think I have pointed out before, make the exception the rule. We thoughtlessly call for equality in professions where physical strength is called for. In such professions employment should be complementary, women working with men hand in glove rather than hand to hand. The defence forces, the police force and the construction industry are such careers. A few women may have the physical attributes to carry out a male role, but that should not lead to the expectation that all women can and should be able to. Most men, and probably most women, would not really want women to struggle in combat with some male enemy or criminal, or with heavy loads. The ratio of male to female workers in such careers is therefore logically uneven. It is irrational to call for equal numbers in such careers.

On the other hand, it is women, the nesters, who gravitate to the caring professions. Here there is unfairness. The wages of women in the caring professions are demonstrably lower than the wages of men in more masculine occupations. for no rational reason. It is in this area that feminists should concentrate their efforts at bringing equity. Ironically feminists do not tend to gravitate to the caring professions, which are left neglected of their attention. Nor do they call for “quotas” of male employees to even the ratio of women to men.

There is equal pay for equal work in all areas in Australia.. It is just that women tend, mainly because of their domestic caring roles, to work fewer hours and even fewer years than men do. If we had a thirty hour week it would liberate women, give them the opportunity to pursue a career at the same time as carrying out an unpaid caring role. It might also persuade men to engage in caring roles more, which would be all to the good. That would be more productive than nagging, or conducting research to discover how much housework men do, and accusing them of shirking. It would be even more beneficial if government would give financial assistance or tax breaks to those in presently unpaid caring roles.

I have previously dealt with the fact that men need to control their feelings for the protection of society. Most males are aware of this need for control of feelings, but if their protective drive is constantly thwarted, they lose this awareness, which is part of their protective mechanism. They are also repeatedly told now that it is good to express one’s feelings. I believe this is another cause of the rise in domestic violence in recent decades. Well-meaning female psychologists and male psychologists and counselors with low testosterone and thus a caring nature which leads them into such roles, preach about expressing feelings, without looking into why men have for centuries repressed their feelings. Testosterone leads men to react violently. Even grief and despair are expressed as anger. It is dangerous to allow free rein to such feelings without looking deeper into the psyche, something men are reluctant to do. We do not tell them to look deeper, in any case. We simply urge them to express their feelings.

Normal men don’t look too hard into why they repress feelings. They are taught now to let it all hang out, and they think they have been wrong for millennia. I ask, why is it that the soldiers returned from the two world wars did not suicide at the rate of modern Australian soldiers? Was it because those wars were less horrendous, or is some other factor at play?

I am an authority on the male persona. I have a multiple personality condition –why, is a story for another day – and I identify as a homosexual male. Even as a homosexual I have protective feelings towards women and children, though I don’t have the masculine build to fulfil the role of protector. I am also considerably aware of the two females who inhabit my body. They are decidedly different from me in mentality, far more so than they are different from each other. I feel protective towards the women who inhabit my body. One of them used to be shrewish and nagging, and also very self-absorbed, and I know I would cheerfully have strangled her had it been physically possible had I not the protective instinct to stay me.
Incidentally she has improved over the years, in spite of, not because of, psychiatrists who regarded her as the best-adjusted of the three of us. Perhaps that says something about the state of society today. Psychiatrists tend to “lock up” folk whom they consider “a danger to society”. I consider psychiatrists to be the greatest danger to modern society. Western society is hurtling towards self-destruction, and those who push against this lemming-like progress are treated as misfits or even insane. Polarisation of politics, catastrophising over Climate Change, the countless “protests” by minorities in Australian society, are indicators that we are being led by emotions rather than rational thought.
I know women are hurt and confused and angry that men today in male- dominated areas like politics and commerce tend to belittle women and make sexist remarks about their ability. Women can’t understand such behaviour, when they are asking for, pleading for, demanding, equality. Let me explain male behaviour from the point of view of a male who is impartial, who is unmoved by any sexual chemistry concerning females. Sexual chemistry is the explanation for male boorish behaviour, even though men themselves are probably unaware of the fact.
Men are visual creatures. I have observed that the sight of a female form is enough to cause a reaction in most healthy heterosexual males, even if an unconscious one. I know women do not deliberately use their bodies to entice men. They are totally unaware of the reaction they induce. Men, also unaware, nevertheless unconsciously defend themselves against perceived manipulation in arenas of contest by making disparaging remarks. When women become hostile at such remarks men counter with further put-downs. Playing the damsel in distress is the best way to counter male insults. Either that, or become as thick-skinned as the men and give as good as you get without getting riled. If you get in a flap the man considers he has won.

If women are to work alongside men in cut-throat scenarios they must understand and appreciate women’s unconscious sexual power. Men need to be made aware of men’s unconscious motives. Legislation to prevent unchivalrous behaviour will only drive unchivalrous attitudes underground where they will breed resentment and even more unhealthy insidious bad behaviour.

Regrettably, it is possible only strong women with some sympathy towards men are suited to power games such as politics. They are aware of and can make use of their feminine power as well as thinking and behaving like males – the Cleopatras. The Bodicas, the Queen Elizabeth 1s, the Golda Meiers, the Indira Ghandis, the Maggie Thatchers, the Jacinda Arderns.

Julie Bishop, thinking and operating entirely as a woman, almost made the grade as a feminine politician, but she admitted herself that it was very hard going and she didn’t really want or enjoy power.

In the above I do not mean to include rapists and deliberate seducers of innocent young women. Such men deserve the penalty of the full weight of the law and public disgust. Bad behaviour is far more weighty than words in damaging society. Women, however, need to be made aware that cads do exist in spite of all laws and societal disapproval, just as confidence tricksters and thieves and all sorts of criminals exist. Women need to be responsible and not get into situations where a cad can take advantage e.g. getting drunk when in the company of a male one does not know and trust. Historically fathers have taken on the role of protecting and advising daughters as to this fact. Mothers innocently or ignorantly take male good behaviour for granted and then are scandalized when cads take advantage. Then women, instead of blaming one cad, tend to blame all of mankind.

A timely post-script: We are entitled to our opinions. It is my opinion that women talk too much for my liking, and it does annoy me. When women find similar faults with men, why is there no outcry about sexism? Are women always right, as heterosexual males philosophically claim in order to keep the peace and continue to have rewarding sexual relations with their counter-parts? If only women realised that away from boardroom and executive arenas, there is no contest, that they have men by the short and curlies! Women say jokingly that sex is what is at the forefront of men’s minds. Many a true word is spoken in jest. Heterosexual males are puppy-dogs if you know how to handle them, ladies. Ask Jacinda Ardern.

Leave a Reply