By Rod Van Mechelen
"Keep your hangups the hell out of this revolution."
Our Hunter-Gatherer Heritage
1995 Bellevue, WA - It's increasingly popular these days to talk about our hunter-gatherer heritage. How men hanker after wool-gathering women, and women after O.J. Simpson because for tens of thousands of years humanity roamed the wilderness picking berries and harassing the wildlife.
There's much to be said for this view. Thousands of years of behavior can't be discarded, after all, in a single civilized afternoon. Still, the case is far from closed. There is much yet to be considered.
What about the huntress? We like to talk about how women melt under the stern "male gaze" of swaggering heroes as they swash their bucklers, but what of Diana, goddess of the hunt? We find her today in action-adventure movies, and other male-fantasies. Even macho men wriggle like puppies at her approach.
What of the Fabricators?
And throughout human history, hundreds of thousands of men spent their lives turning stone into the quarried blocks of early civilization. What about this? What about the builders (anthropologists call them "fabricators") who created civilization? Or the farmers who fed them?
From hunting and gathering, many turned to pastoral pursuits, wandering with grazing herds as hunters became herdsman, or settled down to tend and harvest the good earth, creating markets where the farmer and the cowhand could be associates, if not friends.
Where builders erected monuments to the increasingly popular marketplaces, what could we do with the hunter? And what could women do without them?
Women Go Weak in the Knees
According to Evolutionary Psychologists, women go weak in the knees for the domineering jerk because they are responding at a visceral level to his perceived virility, a characteristic that once upon a time was the mark of a good provider and protector.
This may be true, but is extreme virility a desirable characteristic today? Is it good when women who date and mate with domineering jerks become "battered women," as they so often do?
Always inclined to excuse women and accuse men, pop-feminists are likely to say that women have the right to be attracted to whomever they wish, and it's up to men to change. Certainly, everyone has the right to be attracted to anyone else, but we should not ignore how we can use this "it's in my genes" excuse for all kinds of behavior; e.g.,"the date-rapist is only a throwback to another time...he can't help it."
Civilization and Its Dissed-contents?
Just because a behavior had survival utility at one time does not mean it is appropriate or even moral today. Women who swoon over domineering jerks because thousands of years ago that was the best way for females to assure survival of their offspring are no different from men who sleep with bar sluts because thousands of years ago screwing every woman in sight was the best way for males to assure themselves of offspring.
Understanding a behavior is not the same as excusing it. Civilization is not about accommodating all our most primitive drives, but optimizing our survival and human potential. As behaving like a domineering jerk or bar slut does neither, shouldn't society frown on such behaviors (as once it did) and encourage more responsible behaviors?
A man can be strong without being domineering, and a woman can be sexual without being a slut, so perhaps it's time for us to join the feminists who, in Lilith's Manifesto wrote, "If you, brother, can't get a hard-on for a woman who doesn't grovel at your feet, that's your hangup; and sister, if you can't turn on to a man who won't club you and drag you off by the hair, that's yours. Keep your hangups the hell out of this revolution."
2013 Olympia, WA -
In 1995 the discussion about Evolutionary Biology was still relatively new, its roots in socio-biology notwithstanding. The first Social Darwinists included Herbert Spencer (who coined the "survival of the fittest" phrase popularly attributed to Darwin) and Edward O. Wilson. Desmond Morris' Naked Ape and Robert Ardrey's The Territorial Imperative, among his many other books, catapulted the fundamental concepts into public awareness, and the theories were very neat, very compelling and sometimes, as in many of Ardrey's assertions, also very wrong.
Nonetheless, many of the theories fit. They explain a lot. But often in modern discourse these theories take on the status of excuses rather than explanations. So while we have feminists and their white knights demanding that we embrace female sexuality at its most primitive without calling it out for what it really is--the sexuality of the naked ape--simultaneously they expose their social conservative roots by holding the vast majority of men to the most rigid of Victorian Principles.
The arguments tend to bounce around all over the place until eventually all the players have at one time or another expressed almost identical views. And all of it is irrelevant to what really matters.
The purpose of civilization is not to accommodate our most primitive instincts, but to improve our chances of survival. As many have observed, it's about passing on your genes. In our feminist-dominated societies, the people who are most successful at that--the "meek" who "shall inherit the Earth"--are the welfare mamas and the deadbeat dads, who produce many children at our expense. Not the single moms who fit the movie image of a woman courageously struggling against the odds. Not the maliciously maligned father whose evil-ex deprives him of his children and employs the government to enslave him. No, it's the women and men who could care less about feminism or the MRM but virtually mass produce babies and expect the rest of us to support them.
Feminists and MGTOW are the genetic losers. Feminists by choice, MGTOW because we see no other acceptable choice but to shrug like Ayn Rand's Atlas in the political-economy of sex. Currently I consider myself one of the first MGTOW. Yes, I've had a few relationships, but nothing serious. While I remain open to finding a relationship even in the current milieu, it is my plan to outlive feminism to improve my chances of finding a consort who is untainted by that hateful ideology.
What do I mean by that?
Technologically, we are less than a generation away from achieving practical immortality. The science is making rapid strides and soon we will be able to regrow organs and by that and other means live with the health and vigor of a 25-year-old until we are eventually killed by injury or illness. Okay, but that could be 40 years off, and once these technologies are widely available won't they cost a lot?
If you want to be around to enjoy it, and have enough wealth to afford it, you need to get started now. Links to the information to achieve both are available on my home page and in my archives. The information is there to gain the knowledge. But you have to want it enough to go get it and do it. No charge. Not from me. My Google ads and Amazon ads are all I get, and thanks to those of you who support my site by clicking through them. And if enough of you do, one day I may be able to afford to upgrade this site to a real blog with real writers and comment sections, not a lame old excuse for an MRA like me.
Rod Van Mechelen
Rod Van Mechelen is the author of What Everyone Should Know about Feminist Issues: The Male-Positive Perspective, and the publisher of The Backlash! @ Backlash.com and Cowlitz Country News. He is a member of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe and served for 9-1/2 years on the Cowlitz Indian Tribal Council.