Honesty
Some conflicts are biologically programmed so that the human species achieves a competitive edge over other forms of life. Most of these programs are in the realm of sexuality.
Each of us, whether male or female, has a pre-programmed preference to be loved by more than one partner of the opposite sex, while each of us also wants our lovers to love us exclusively, or at least consider us better than other loved persons. We can simplify the issue by stating: men want to possess more than one woman, and women want to possess more than one man.
The form in which the possessive interest expresses itself may vary between males and females. The male possessive impulse, in the current and traditional sexual order, is more directed towards activities that potentially sire more offspring, while the female possessive impulse is directed towards having more male backup options.
But these preferences are mere logical expressions of reproductive strategies. They result from the fact that, for females, sexual conduct has historically always been more of a risk than for males, as pregnancies bring obligations for years and have a significant negative impact on the sexual market value of females.
But once the risk of pregnancy is eliminated, and the faster decline in the sexual market value of women is arrested and resolved, the pattern of possessive behavior in females changes dramatically.
What remains is that, in all standard sexual situations, heterosexual males and heterosexual females are opponents because they have opposing interests.
So, because I apparently express the interests of men in many articles, am I anti-woman? Of course not. Women are the only true content of my life (not my work, not my wealth).
I love women. And yet, I am keenly aware that my interests and the interests of each woman I love are opposed to each other. A woman always wants me to love her exclusively, while other men also love her; she may swear lifelong loyalty to me, but when I am out of sight, she will entice other men to have a sexual interest in her and enjoy it when they do.
Infidelity is, in fact, quite common among both men and women, though the motivations and expressions may differ. This is why even married women spend much more time grooming themselves when they go out, rather than when they just stay at home and are seen by no other men except their husbands.
I am a man, and a writer. Much of my writing reflects my interests as a man. What’s more, I generate most of my income as a writer by giving advice to men.
So, do you think I regard other men as my friends, while women are my opponents? You are wrong. Nothing would suit me better than if 90 percent of all other men simply disappeared. There would be much less competition for all the women of this world. If women are my opponents, then men are my enemies.
So why, for all these reasons, does a good part of my work address men?
The fact is that I do not write for men. I write for myself. My writing is nothing but my own honest reflection on myself and my position in the world. I am completely incapable of writing lies.
This is because I only write when I have gained what I believe is some new insight into how I and the world around me function, and what I should do to be competitive. The reason why some of my work appeals more to men than to women is that, even though men are my natural enemies, their pattern of thought is much closer to my own.
That doesn’t mean that I do not understand women. Actually, some of my female readers have expressed that I understand women better than most women do. As if all of the above were not complex enough, men—not women—are in a better position to represent many of my political interests (such as opposing anti-male gender legislation), even though they are essentially my enemies.
And when I do touch on male discrimination, other men, even though they are my enemies, see their interests covered in my writing.
In spite of all this, I cannot fraternize with other males in order to oppose females. It would put me in the entirely wrong camp. And I would be a fool if I were to sacrifice myself by becoming a hero of male interests. It would put me at a disadvantage on every front that counts for me.
Fewer women would consider me a worthwhile choice. Other men could easily gain a competitive edge by professing not to be as “anti-female” as I am.
Other men would also profit in whatever way I might strengthen their position toward women. What a fool I would be, doing the dirty political work for other men. And I am sure that other men feel as I do. For this reason, there will never be a male gender movement on the scale of the feminist or radical feminist movement.