Answer: Very Carefully!
The Gender War has been going on for a long, long time now - since the beginning of time, really. Perhaps sometimes it calms down and becomes a mere "Battle of Sexes," while at other times it turns into a more serious "war," but this antagonism between the sexes always exists.
In fact, one might say it is the very purpose of "the sexes." They are supposed to test each other as a way of seeking out superior genes. It's what happens nearly everywhere there is sexual reproduction, from simple organisms right up to the complex ones. When there is sexual reproduction there is a measure of hostility between the sexes as they compete and weed out one another, each seeking their own best interests. It's a messy but effective way of overcoming adversity - which is often why a single sex species will change itself into a two-sex species, to overcome environmental adversity or other hardships which requires rapid adaption. Once the adversity has been conquered, these "inter-sexual" species will revert back to single sex again.
unless we arrange it ourselves scientifically), there is also a cycle to the sexes coming together and later repelling from each other, which follows the basic theme of how simple organisms can change from single-sex to two-sex species and back again. This cycle is manifested in humans by the way civilizations rise and fall based upon restraining or freeing our sexuality. When civilizations begin and then rise, they are patriarchal in nature - the sexes work together in defined gender roles which aid them in overcoming adversity. Once the adversity is overcome and life becomes easy within a prosperous civilization, the sexes begin to androgynize which causes them to repel from each other.
Once the females need males less for survival, sexuality becomes less restrained, birth rates decline, the civilization decays then crumbles, and out of the ashes adversity is once more created and the sexes will again form gender roles to overcome it. Over and over. Throughout recorded history.
Sex is related to nearly everything around us. It is an enormous force; an instinct second only to basic survival. The birdsong you hear is about sex. The frogs croaking, the flowers blooming, the fireflies producing their glow... you name it, sex is everywhere. One thing I find interesting about studying this is that evolutionary wise, in most species males are indeed quite high energy and functionally useless aside from fertilization purposes, but also it seems most scientists endorse the idea that the more males help the female with reproduction (do something with their sex drive besides simply copulate), the more "properly evolved" it appears the male of the species becomes. For example, male birds are considered "less useless" because they bring things to the female to nest with while his colourful plumage distracts predators away from her and the eggs. Beavers are the mammal equivalent, for they also help building a home and controlling the immediate environment to aid the female and offspring.
I suspect that in humans, this male utility was intensified somewhere in our evolutionary past when females began ovulating covertly rather than openly signalling through sight, smell, or other means that they are in estrus. Males are always "at the ready" to serve the females' sex drive, thus the urgency of the male sex drive. When the female is ready to be fertilized, she wants it now, and the males must be prepared to do so when she demands or he gets left out of the game. But, in most living things, the male is only summoned by the female at certain times during her reproductive cycle - for the rest, neither cares too much about the other. In humans, since we have developed few clear signs for when females are ovulating, the males are kept at the females' bidding nearly all of the time.
Furthermore, the females, not the males, control nearly everything about the way in which we evolve and even how our species structures itself. Males who do not co-operate with the female agenda do not get chosen for reproduction, therefore, all the "power" in a species ultimately lies with the female.
|Click Pic for "The Amazon Women"|
But in reality gender solidarity was never an option; sexual creatures, as pointed out earlier, have an individualistic, anarchistic bent and seldom engage in compacts that entail sacrificing for the common good. (For example, there is no known case of a predator species - humans perhaps aside - successfully adopting a quota system, even though these can increase prey yields considerably.) Instead males compete with each other for the available females." -- Fred Hapgood, Why Males Exist; An Inquiry Into The Evolution Of Sex, William Morrow and Company, Inc. New York, 1979, pp. 96-97
Females have a social power which males do not have. Much of this power is based upon the denial of having such power, but this is the "female way." The female reproductive cell's power exists in the fact that all of the male cells are trying to stand out and "be the one" for her to mate with. She is passive, he is active - and she tests them all to see which meet her standards, and is actively hostile to those who do not. Further, even male competition is done to satisfy her sexual desires.
"[Regarding elephant seal mating behavior, where females will copulate with lesser males, then 'bawl out' so dominant males will come to chase the lesser male away then mate with her immediately afterwards] Recently these "protests" have been studied intensively by Cathleen Cox and Burney J. Le Boeuf. They found that males mounting estrous females are more than twice as likely to be driven away by other males when the female protests than when she remains silent. Thus the picture that emerges is that the females have a substantial degree of control over the fertilization process, and that they use this control, at least in part, to play males off against each other.
Why do they do this, if they do? What could be the point? Perhaps the single observation that can be made about the range of ways one male is chosen out of the many that are called is that physical exertion is almost always involved, or demanded. It might be that the female is interposing a test that prevents her mating with gross misfits, from pairing her genes with genes that are defective.
The case that fits this suggestion best is male competition among those creatures in which the males have only one gene set instead of the usual two. A male of such a species has only one source of genetic information. If one of his genes is defective he must rely on it, use it, and express it, regardless. Mating among the social insects - a prime example of these one-gene-set males - is just as strenuous as among the larger-bodied species we have been reviewing. In some cases a queen flies to great heights so that only the fastest, highest-flying males can reach her; in others she might crawl along the ground, requiring the males to search for her over periods of as long as several weeks." -- Fred Hapgood, Why Males Exist; An Inquiry Into The Evolution Of Sex, William Morrow and Company, Inc. New York, 1979, pp. 117-118
"Testing" males by being difficult or hostile towards them is a natural part of being a sexual female. As was pointed out earlier, on some level, the actual purpose of two sexes is to overcome adversity, thus its nature will always involve testing and and a degree of hostility. It will never end. It is supposed to work this way. The phrase "he chases her until she catches him" comes to mind, for this is the embodiment of female-male
Further, if the entire population of males were able to meet her tests, the female would merely raise the bar higher so that only the top males pass the test... and if too many pass that test, she will raise the bar again, and again, and again, until she weeds out the top males from the lesser ones. The female, being in control of reproduction, doesn't get aroused sexually by males who don't chase her and pass her tests - it's actually what turns her on, so to speak.
|Click Pic for "Bad Boys, Alphas, Assholes, Niceguys and Players"|
Also to note, the female's position is naturally on the deceptive side while the male is trying to be as "true" as possible. There is no point in him feigning he doesn't have power like the female does. He is competing to be "the best" and if you are the best, there is no point in pretending you aren't from his point of view. It would be counter-productive to be anything less than your best.
Here's a study on the mating dance of rats that shows very well the concept of "He chases her until she catches him.":
"According to Ogas and Gaddam, we can learn some important lessons about female sexual behaviour from observing rats in the laboratory.
They insist that if you put a male and female rat in close proximity to one another, the female will start to come on to the male, performing actions associated with sexual interest — running and then stopping to encourage the male to chase her.
But after a bit of kiss-chase, the female rat stands still, adopting a submissive stance until the male takes action. They also claim that almost every quality of dominant males — from the way they smell to the way they walk and their deep voice — triggers arousal in the female brain, while ‘weaker’ men, who are not taller, have higher voices or lower incomes, excite us less.
What they seem to be suggesting is that the cavemen were right all along and that what women really want is to be dragged by the hair, all the while feigning reluctance, by macho men waving clubs." -- Has Equality Destoyed Your Sex Life? -- by Linda Kelly for MailOnline
The Human Mating Dance
It is appropriate to describe our mating behaviour as a "dance," for that is sort of what it is. In dancing, the male role leads the female - if they mix up this dynamic the dance simply does not work. It doesn't mean the male role is superior to the female role however, for at the outset it is the woman who controls whether she will engage in the dance or whether she'll sit it out completely. Women decide within the first few minutes of meeting a man whether he's worthy to dance with or not, and the first steps are hers, to try to initiate action on the part of the male. As with many things between males and females, you can see how "the hierarchy" of what appears on the surface is different from the underlying, mostly hidden and reversed hierarchy that exists underneath:
|Click Pic for "Finding the Small Pool of Interested Women"|
So, the first thing she does is signal openess to the men in the room to attract their attention. Then she begins to weed out the lesser men from the better prospects. As the dance continues, she focuses more and more on those she would like to have approach her. Although she gives out covert signals, a normal man won't approach unless he's invited to do so. These are what Pick-up Artists (P.U.A.'s) call Indications of Interest (I.O.I.'s).
Without the gaze, she probably just walks up and goes, hmm, he’s cute, and then goes on her merry way.
But, with the gaze, especially if you nod, smile or even wink, that changes things. It elicits behavior from her. An uninterested woman will actually be quite terse with you (99% of them), break eye contact with you, snap at you (wench), and rapidly leave. Truthfully, though, you won’t know it until you see it. But once you see it, you’ll always be able to see it.
"Cary (1976) discovered that the woman, through eye contact, controlled the course of interaction with a male stranger, both in the laboratory and in singles' bars. Perper (1985) gave a detailed description of courtship, stressing an escalation-response process in which women play a key role in escalation or deescalation. The steps in this process are approach, turn, first touch, and steady development of body synchronization.
Although these reports are clearly valuable, most researchers addressed courtship very generally, and some failed to recognize the importance of the female role in the courtship process .What was needed was a more complete ethogram of women's nonverbal courtship signals. To compile such a catalog of flirting behavior exhibited by women involved in initial heterosexual interaction, more than 200 adults were observed (Moore, 1985) in field settings such as singles' bars, restaurants, and parties.
Research has shown, therefore, that the cultural myth that the man is always the sexual aggressor, pressing himself on a reluctant woman, is incorrect." -- Courtship Signaling and Adolescents: "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun"? Monica M. Moore, Ph.D.Department of behavioral and Social Sciences, Webster University.
|Click for "The Sexes Approaching Each Other (Eye Contact, Escalating)|
All women test - it's infuriating but it's a fact of life. But how does one pass these irrational tests where it seems she's basically demanding you serve her toasted ice?
Well, for the small tests (or the initial posturing of dominance for the male in the relationship), the best way to pass them is to simply not take her seriously and pretend she's a little girl who's hardly worthy of your attentions.
|Click Pic for "That First Date at Your Place"|
|Click for "The Principles of Seduction"|
For the more serious types of tests however, (ie. wanting to move in with you after dating for only two months, then pulling a week long hissy fit when you say no) you've got to give some sort of response which is firmer. They want to know the steel content of your balls. To pass the test, your response needs to be some version of, "I’m going to do whatever I choose to do, whether you like it or not, and for no better reason than I want to…..and if you don’t like it, you can just leave because, quite frankly, there are other women waiting for me to get rid of you so they can have a turn."
But... there are relatively normal, reasonable tests... and psychotic, raving lunatic tests. If you ever get a psychotic, raving lunatic test, don’t address it - just dump her with no further explanation. Simply walk away from her and never speak to her again. If you pass normal tests, all testing should cease for awhile. If instead she escalates the testing, the more she escalates, the more you should consider dumping her.
Examples of lunatic tests:
|Click Pic for "Most Women Don't Want a Man Who Isn't Choosy"|
She steals from you
You go to the bathroom at a bar, restaurant etc. and you come back to find her flirting with another guy, she hits on another guy while you are around or tries to provoke a situation between you and another guy
She makes a scene out in public
Calls the cops on you for any reason whatsoever
Well, you get the picture.
Western Culture's Inability to Pass Feminism's Cultural Fitness Tests
As I mentioned at the top of this page, these "fitness tests" not only occur on the cellular level and in the mating behaviours of the various species which reproduce sexually - including humans - but they also appear on the macro-scale. Our civilizations keep rising up under defined gender roles, collapsing under androgyny, and then rebuilding themselves again because of the adversity which gets created from the collapse.
|Click for "There's No Such Thing as a Free Lunch"|
The Eskimos, you know, used to send the elderly off to meet the Great Walrus on an iceflow.
No population can survive if it starves the younger and productive generations to feed the elderly and unproductive generations. This too is just simple math. We are in some deep, deep doo-dah because of our destruction of the nuclear family.
“It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.” -- Thomas Jefferson
We are dying because we've ignored the sometimes unpleasant but very neccessary Objective Truth of the Masculine Principle: That there's no such thing as a Free Lunch!
And yet, we keep doing more of the same.
|Click Pic for "The History of Rome" -- by Titus Livius (59BC -17AD)|
We hear every day on the TV and from our politicians that it's a travesty women make up such small percentage of corporate executives and government leaders, all the while ignoring that the nation's garbage collectors are nearly all male too, as well as 85% of the homeless.
Obviously, the entire mantra of feminism is, "Only the kinds of equality that somehow always favours me."
|Click Pic for "The Wife of Noble Character"|
...in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury.
---"...the influence of the Lacedaemonian women has been most mischievous. The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women of other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy."
---"...But, when Lycurgus, as tradition says, wanted to bring the women under his laws, they resisted, and he gave up the attempt." -- The Politics of Aristotle, The Spartan Women
As a culture, we've been failing the fitness tests our women have been giving us.
I sometimes suspect this is what we are supposed to “do.” Pass the cultural fitness test… there's something better on the other side, something we're supposed to find out – maybe it will change us, but we are never going to get there until we pass these fitness tests that keep destroying us.
Many messages have been sent to us, obviously trying to warn us about “something.” These things are, I think, “twinkling reminders of humanity’s past.” The story of Pandora’s box… the legend of Atlantis… the Garden of Eden… Jason and the Argonauts… Egypt’s Punt… They are all of a similar theme, containing similar messages or warnings etc. They are talking to us from the deep, deep past. Perhaps if we pass these cultural fitness tests and stop destroying ourselves like pathetic lemmings, our civilization will develop enough to finally “figure it out.”
What “it” is, I don’t know. Maybe it’s a better way of living. Maybe without civilization always collapsing and needing to be rebuilt, we'll figure out how to get out of the solar system - maybe we'll find other lifeforms because our technology won’t reset 500 years back in time if we prevent the continual collapse of civilization.
I know it sounds kinda New Age, but, imagine how different the world would be today if say, Rome had never degraded its principles, and it had never fallen. How advanced do you think our technology might be today if Rome had survived and they kept pushing forward, advancing and learning, all the way up to the present day? I suspect I might be taking my hover-craft to the corner store instead of my crappy old car. Who knows? Maybe we “figure something out.” But it does seem like we keep getting sent “warnings” from the past where our ancestors are saying to us “watch out” and “fix this problem.”
|Click Pic for "The Suffragettes versus The Truth"|
If the point is to be anti-animal and pro-reason, then I wonder what would happen when we finally figure out how to stop destroying ourselves by succumbing to our base animal natures, of which our sex drives are most likely the strongest, and the way women stop men from “thinking” and rather living by pure passion. Maybe if we overcome this lemming tendency that has plagued us for thousands of years, there is something else on the other side.