Woman. A Manual For Men.

The book by Oleg Novoselov explains what a woman and man are. It uses evolutionary psychology to explain religion, tradition, history of civilization and structure of society.

Month: November, 2012

Foreword

Woman. She is gorgeous. She is surrounded by an aura of mystery. She is the object of man’s desire and man’s love. Man brings her spoils of war for survival and composes poems to in her honor. Her presence paralyzes man’s will and shuts down his mind. When she leaves, man feels strange unhappiness, and emptiness in his wallet. Nevertheless, there so little lore about the relationship between a man and a woman one can live a whole life without understanding it. The literature on the subject is limited to complicated and contradictory psychological theories, rapturous oohs and aahs of romantic writers, hateful feminist demagoguery, pickup instructions and musings of women haters — nothing that would give clear and concise description. Bits and pieces of information could be found in books written by ethologists and biologists, who study the behavior of animals in the wild — but, again, nothing that would give a complete picture. Shelves in bookstores are filled with books written by women for women of the ‘Ten Ways to Manipulate Your Man’ and ‘How Great It Is To Be a Bitch’ sort. In the twenty first century, the century in which humankind has discovered the evolution of the Universe, invented numerous particle theories and created genetically modified organisms, a woman to a man is still a mystery, a supernatural object. There is a small number of men who do actually understand women — but, unfortunately, they do not write books. Not until now…

Once upon a time, after yet another romantic (mis)adventure, I recognized a number of patterns emerging in my relationships with women, and I asked myself a question — what exactly am I dealing with, and what is the nature of this phenomenon? Having been prepared by my university to be a researcher, I began to systemize my existing knowledge, and to search for new one. What followed was a several years long journey of discovery. Having started with enumerating psychological tricks women employ, I had to go through humankind’s history and prehistory in the end. The picture, the worldview assembled from the pattern’s elements gathered turned out to be so logical, simple and elegant, I couldn’t resist sharing my findings. I wrote this book like a manual, from simple to complex, from past to present. Besides, a manual does not have to follow a formal citation style, and someone must have already found what I have learnt. Hence, a manual.

To make the book accessible to a wider audience, I kept scientific terminology to a minimum, and often sacrificed rigorousness of proof for ease of understanding — apologies to professional scientists.

The book utilizes simple and familiar (to men) language to describe and explain nature of women, their behavior, their logic, their mystery, their motives when they interact with men, children and society. After reading this book, a woman will no longer be a mystery to the reader. The book is written for the widest audience of men, from a president to teenager, who want to understand women and be in control of a relationship with a woman. The book is also of interest to those women who want to better understand themselves.

Advertisements

Introduction

Let us start with the basics and establish some definitions. What does constitute a relationship between a man and a woman?

There is a plethora of reasons why a man, armed with powerful logic, finds it exceptionally hard to understand women. Sexual attraction that acts to distort the perception is one of the many we will cover further. The main reason is the composite nature of a relationship. Man and woman interact in three dimensions:

1. As a male and female of homo sapiens species.

2. As two partners in a business venture.

3. As two friends, acquantances, neighbors — interpersonal dimension.

Each and every one of the three affects not only the final outcome, but others as well. It is impossible to compute the individual vectors knowing only the sum. We will look at each dimension separately to draw the complete picture of a relationship between genders, and between humans in general.

3. Interpersonal dimension.

This one is the smallest of the three and wil be left outside of the book’s scope. Normally, what is attributed to interpersonal relationship actually is a manifestation of either the gender instinct or the hierarchical instinct of a specimen. The book focuses will focus on the first two.

It is impossible to describe the inner workings of a complicated object such as, for example, a jet engine, without basic knowledge of physics and specialized knowledge of aerodynamics and mechanics. Likewise, it is impossible to describe a man and a woman without basic knowledge of humanity in general. Thus, the first chapter of the book is dedicated to the basis of the basics — biological nature of our species.

Start reading first chapter

Male and Female. Biological Evolution of Relationship.

The first vector is the relationship between a man and a woman as a male and female of a biological species. Lets see how our species is different from others, and what natural laws govern our behavior. To illustrate the points, we will use the following pictures-schemes.

Image

 

 

Lets travel several hundred thousand years ago, to the Lower Paleolithic. This is the time when our species just appeared and the Hominini-soon-to-be-human evolved new instincts to conform to the changing conditions of both the new environment and the new abilities of the human body. The distinctive feature of all human species are bipedalism and large brain size. Since the upper limbs were designated for things other than walking, a human is less agile than other animals. To compensate, humans had the brain to learn, to make tools, and to use a wider variety of behaviors, such as various hunting stratgies. The brain came at a hefty price. A large head required a long period of both prenatal and neonatal development. The difficulty of passing through the birth channels and pelvis necessitated wider hips in a female, and other manifestations of sexual dimorphism, thus making her even less agile. Longer period of caring and teaching the newborns further tied the female to the children — for a very long period of time — which rendered the female more or less helpless and unable to exist on her own surrounded by saber-tooth cats, cave bears and other dangers of the time.

 

Image

 

The sexual dimorphism led to narrow specialization of male and female — the strict separation of gender roles. Female focused on feeding and raising the young. Males focused on protecting and providing for the females and the young.

Powerful brain gave our ancestors a huge advantage over other animals. Once humans learned to use weapons and fire, they started to grow in numbers and expand their territory. Biological evolution or the human species accelerated, and there was not enough time between then and now to change and overhaul the instinctive base of a specimen. A contemporary man has both pack animal instincts from before the stone age, and human-specific instincts acquired later. To illustrate, when we invite friends over, we offer them food. To finalize a business deal, we often invite the partner to a restaurant. Why are we offering to eat food, rather than use a restroom? It is our instinct that we only share food with those of our pack. In the animal world, only the family members have access to food — others are driven away. So we eat together in order to create trusting relationship. We use the ancient instinct. Same goes for for alcohol, or Indian’s peace pipe. The law of the jungle is ‘You can only relax among your friends’, for if you relax among non-friends, you will be torn to pieces. Same goes for fire, with difference being that fire is a more recent, human-specific instinct. This is why, when meeting with friends, we often light something up — fireplace, candles, barbeque. Sometimes, we mix everything together: an aforementioned barbeque often involves all the elements — alcohol, food, fire — which work to reinforce each other. Once there is enough alcohol to shut the mind off, we start dancing around the fire, just like we did tens of thousands years ago. Speaking of the mind, what it normally does is merely serving the instinctive behaviors. For example, in a dangerous situation, the self-preservation instinct dictates, via an emotion (fear), to run and find a safe place. The mind decides on which direction to run and what place to hide in.

Likewise, the instincts control and direct relationship between a man and a woman. For example, the primal reproductive instinct of a young and inexperienced girl (young, sexually mature female human specimen) has determined that a particular cool and tough (high rank qualities) guy is a good survivalist and a top genetic material (according to stone age criteria). Therefore, it is his genes that have to be passed on to the next generation. The instinct then turns on the emotion known as ‘love’, which should eventually make the female to conceive from that particular male. The mind is either shut off completely, or is busy finding rationalizations, such as ‘I am with him because he is cool, fun, drives a motorcycle, and he will soon stop drinking, stealing and fighting’. Any rational advice ‘wake up! he is a loser and and and asshole, he will end up in prison as soon as the legal age permits, and you will be stuck destitute with a difficult child on your hands’ is ignored — love seems to be all powerful.

In a sense, a human, which is controlled by ancient instincts, is much like an old computer, which had newer programs installed side by side with the old ones. The programs compete for resources — the rational mind at times resists, and at times works to serve the instincts. ‘Love is evil — it can force you to love anyone’ — a popular saying goes. Basically, these conflicts, interpretation of relationship between genders in the context of animal as well as human instincts is what the book is about. The influence of the most basic animal instincts on the partner selection process is described in ethology works by A. Protopopov. We will cover the summary of his works in the first chapter and focus on the younger, human specific instincts in the rest of the book. Of special interest are the instincts that control and direct a man and a woman in a bonded pair — pair relationships have existed for long enough for new instincts to appear. For example, any more or less isolated social group soon breaks into pairs. At the same time, people in pairs often have partners on the side — the animal instincts did not go away, they still exist alongside.

Instincts in our brain do not live separately, they are tied and interact constantly. Together, they form a unified program of instinctive behavior. To continue the computer analogy, any operating system is a monolithic block of opcodes in memory, which is logically broken into modules and blocks for ease of understanding and development. Self-preservation instinct is a set of all instincts responsible for keeping the human being safe. Gender, or reproductive instinct set is responsible for everything to do with reproduction, hierarchical instinct is responsible for interaction within a group, and so long and so forth. Again, the division is logical, and serves the purpose of better and easier understanding.

Instincts control human behavior through certain physiological states — various emotions and desires. If you feel something, and feel strongly, this is probably an instinct controlling you. Desire of sex with a woman is a manifestation of reproductive instinct, while anger at your boss is manifestation of hierarchical instinct.

Instincts differ in intensity. When a woman orders her husband to stop a sexual act — in the middle of the process — the man might react in a number of ways. If the man’s reproductive instinct is stronger, he will not stop, and will face prosecution for ‘marital rape’. If the man’s self preservation instinct is stronger, he will not only stop, but start avoiding the women all together and might even develop impotency.

Having a specter of conflicting and collaborating instincts and groups of instincts, with added effect from cultural tradition and topped with brain’s rational thinking process makes a human’s behavior contradictory and difficult to analyze. This is, however, only a surface view — armed with the knowledge of evolution and history of humankind we can break down the motivations and understand the driving force behind human behavior. For example, we know, that at different stages in humankind development, the human was unarmed, weakly armed and strongly armed species. Every stage left corresponding instincts in the human psyche, which controls the behavior through emotions when the conditions are right. When walking unarmed in a wild forest — with real predators — a man feels danger and fear, he feels like a potential victim, prey. Under influence of these emotions, he treads lightly, keeps the eyes open and avoids potentially dangerous places. If he finds a stick, he picks it up — and feels more confident right away. With a stick and a hunting knife, the man feels prepared to fight off any attack, he spreads his shoulders, makes noise walking to show that he is not a prey and to scare away any would be predators. With a gun, the man feels he himself is the predator. He starts sneaking, and constantly scans environment looking for a prey. All this I experienced personally while being in taiga for the first time — human ‘firmware’ has instinctive programs for three situations described.

So, let us unravel this most interesting ball by pulling on the thread we grabbed — biological evolution of our species. In the context of primal instincts, we will examine the system of relationship between people at the level of basic biological unit, which was, at different stages in our history, a pack, a tribe, a clan and a family.

Next section

Hierarchy. Animalistic instincts. Structure of gender relationship.

As long as our ancestors were (relatively) undeveloped, as long as they lacked effective tools, weapons, hunting strategies, knowledge of agriculture and cattle breeding, their level of satiety and safety was not any different from that of other animals. They were preyed upon by predators, their population size fluctuated with the amount of game and edible plants available. They balanced between life and death, competed with other species for survival in the process of evolution. A pack (or troop) of humans was not (yet) much different from a pack of chimpanzees. Every pack was headed by a single leader — the strongest and the most aggressive male. The leader dominated all the other pack members. The rest of the males took positions below him in a hierarchy, the place in the hierarchy was determined in daily cruel fights and conflicts between them. Due to lack of any strong weaponry, such as claws, hoofs, or horns, these conflicts rarely resulted in death. For the same reason, a single human, a pair or even a small group could not leave the pack — unarmed and slow, a lone human was an easy prey. Birth rates were at about replacement level, and the amount of humans stayed roughly the same throughout the period. And, naturally, this sort of lifestyle made the humans evolve corresponding instincts (firmware) — same instincts other animals that live in packs, packs or herds had to evolve. This firmware is still with us — there wasn’t enough time for it to go away. If, for one reasons or another, low-educated humans form an isolated group where resources are scarce, and are not able to leave the group, they start to live according to these ancient instincts. They form an animalistic herd led by the most aggressive, cunning and audacious male, with harsh competition for place in the hierarchy. Examples of such groups are prisons, foster homes, the army (hazing).

The position of the female in the human pack differed slightly from that of another species. Human female still preferred to mate with the strongest and most aggressive males — these qualities made the males fittest for the environment. These males fathered most of the children in the pack. The difference arose because the female of human species had a lot less survivability and could not feed her children on her own. And since an aggressive, strong and cunning male was a lot more concerned with keeping and advancing his place in the hierarchy than caring for his many females and children, humans came up with the system of sexual favors or rewards. A male in the hierarchy below the leader could, too, earn a female’s grace by sharing his catch with the female. The ability to bring home booty was a additional measurement of success and fitness. There was a market of sorts, a market for sexual favors. The price of sex was determined by the male’s position in the hierarchy. The leader mated for free. A low rank male, even if fortunate enough to come into a possession of something valuable, had no chance (here we see that roots of prostitution are not social, but biological, and all efforts to get rid of it are wasted).

The leader (as well as second, third and fourth male in the hierarchy) is not only efficacious on his own, he can take the catch from a weaker male. Therefore, he is the most prominent source of resources for a female. He can also drive off a weak, low rank male the female does not want to mate with. Every female wanted to get an exclusive feeding and protection from that valuable male, drive off other females from him, attach him using sex and ritualistic feeding with especially sweet fruits she found when gathering food, and other methods. To excel at her role and to overcome her physical weakness, the female became more cunning than the most cunning male. Every one of us knows the erotic female tricks, when a woman, kissing a man, puts some sweet berry into his mouth. This is an ancient erotic ritual, known to many primates. This is how pair structure formed. In the stone age, however, the pair only existed until children achieved a certain degree of self-sufficiency. This is why today the peak of all divorces is four years after marriage — at age three, a child can eat and move on his own.

There were no old people in the pack to speak of. As soon as an adult grew weak, he or she fell to the bottom of the hierarchy and was eaten by the predators. The old and the low rank males were the buffer between the dangerous environment and reproductive part of the pack.

Next section

Main programs. Self-preservation. Gender and hierarchy. Leader’s instincts. Biological moral.

Let us examine the basic human instinct groups of the animalistic pack level.

1. Self-preservation instinct.

Serves to preserve an individual in dangerous situations. Controls the individual through the emotion of fear. In fear, human evades danger. Self preservation instinct’s directives can be overriden by the posterity protection instinct, and, in case of males, by female protection instinct and group protection instinct. In the latter case the individual endangers himself to preserve the reproductive core of the group. Self-preservation instinct is suppressed in low-rank individuals to make it easier for them to sacrifice themselves. Individuals in the reproductive core, on the other hand, have their self-preservation instinct strengthened.

2. Food instinct.

This is a wide variety of instinctive programs that serve the function of finding food and other resources. This group includes the hunter’s instinct, which we feel today as ardor, or passion, scouting instinct, which manifests today as curiosity, and others. Theft and robbery are also instinctive programs, characteristic of most animal species. In the animal world a catch, ransacked or stolen from another individual of the same group, is still a catch. Theft and robbery were routine in human pack as well. We will call this group the “Steal” instinct, we will refer to it often.

3. Gender and hierarchy instinct module.

Human female’s instinctive firmware has three modes of interacting with three types of males. The leader gets free, exclusive and unlimited sex to continue his elite genetic lineage. He is also turned to by females for protection from lower rank males’ unpaid sexual endeavors. Mid-rank males get strictly rationed sex in exchange for food. The more successful the male is at bringing food, the greater the chance his genes will make it in the next generation. Low-rank males get no sex at all even if they paid for it to eliminate their genes from the pool. The more cunning females played, swindled the males in this low-rank category — they took the males’ catch, and then squealed to call on the high rank males to protect them .

The male had three main programs in his instinctive firmware. His position in the hierarchy determined which of the three was active at the time. The leader’s instincts allowed him to control the pack and the situation, they included resistance to conflict, highest confidence, powerful voice and intonations, ability to manipulate individuals and groups. They also included responsibility — leader has to watch out for external danger, raise an alarm and protect the pack by spearheading the strong males of the group. The leader feels the pack as his own organism, as a part of himself. The leader also has strong territorial instinct (the one property instinct evolved from). The leader mates with the females as often as he wants and can’t imagine otherwise. He also drives off other males from the females whenever he can.

Mid-rank males are less responsible than the leader, they control the low ranks, elicit female grace via sex for food program (since they are lower than the females in the hierarchy), put high value on sexual pittance and are fearful of the leader. When the leader grows weak, the strongest of the mid-ranks takes his place, and his leader instincts kick in. A low-rank has very low self-confidence, is afraid of mid-ranks, idolizes the leader and dreams of females. Any attempt to mate results in him being driven off by the the female, other females and/or mid-rank males. He does not value his life and does not take care of himself, but caters to others hoping to earn some favor. If not pressed for a while, he takes the position of mid-rank, which switches the controlling instinctive program. It is worth noting that a mid-rank can be reduced to a low-rank, while a leader’s rank can not be reduced. Leader’s instincts can not be switched off, the leader can only be killed or banished. In the latter case the controlling instinctive program is the subset of leader’s program — the program of lone leader, leader-without-pack.

Essentially, humans species has four distinct genders. Females and three types of males — high rank, mid-rank and low-rank. The male’s rank is determined by the instinctive program currently active in his brain. That program sets the male’s behavior, both psychological and physiological components, as well as the females’ attitude toward him. All three types are known by the same name — men. This is the result of great confusion that does not allow to correctly describe and interpret modern relationship between genders.

Again, in the modern world low-rank or high-rank does not correspond to the position in the contemporary social hierarchy, it is the currently active set of instincts. The position of an executive director usually correlates with having a high rank, but assigning someone’s nephew to the position does not change his rank.

4. Biological moral.

Animal species, equipped with powerful weaponry (claws, poison, etc), all have instinctive programs that prevent using the weapons against the members of same group, and often the same species. This instinct is called biological moral. Due to the lack of this instinct, weakly armed chimpanzees in a pack kill their own a lot more often than strongly armed lions in a pride. Our species did not evolve biological moral at the pack-herd-troop level.

Next section

Invention of weapons. New evolutionary arms race.

As early humans developed their material culture, they eventually invented somewhat effective wooden and stone weaponry around the time of Middle Paleolithic. The situation started to change.

First change was the place of human in nature. From a scavenger-gatherer, and an easy prey for large carnivores, he started to transform into a universal, multi-functional organism, with functions including being a predator. Once Mowgli acquired the Iron Tooth and the Red Flower, the tiger’s snack became the terror of the jungle. The rise in levels of safety and satiety was unprecedental. Birth rate has risen significantly. With weaponry, the human stopped balancing at the brink of extinction and started a global expansion, increased population size and area of habitat.

Second, any conflict for a place in the hierarchy or for a female could be an armed one. In an armed conflict, one of the males was killed, and the other maimed.

Third, a small group of people could leave the pack and still have a decent chance of survival. Essentially, human became a completely different, new species — but with old set of pack and herd instincts. Paleolithic was not long enough for the evolution to eradicate them, and it found other ways to solve the contradiction between the old instincts and the new conditions.

1. The most aggressive, strongest individuals were the first to perish in the internal conflicts, while those who could suppress the instincts for the time being, and use the mind instead, gained an advantage. A male within the top five by strength could, when in conflict with a stronger one, feign submission to avoid the fight and, during nighttime, kill the strong aggressive opponent with a stone in his sleep, and then take the place of the leader in the hierarchy. Or, he could kidnap a young female, run away and found a new group. In either case, his genes made it into the next generation. Genes of a man, whose mind defeated the instinctive through reason. Thus, low primativity was born. The ability of a human to act contrary to instinctive programs, to plan and to organize. To weaken, to replace the instinctive motivation of his behavior with rational motivation. This ability has improved learnability, as well as abstract thinking, which started the chain reaction. The human made its first step toward civilization, toward kingdom of the mind.

2. The qualities that made a group more competitive with wild nature became less important than the qualities that made a group more competitive with other groups. Here are the most important such qualities.

First, since the confilicts between the males for the females carried mortal danger, any single individual of either gender was a source of instability and risk in the group. The pack sexual market became very detrimental to the group. A group, which paired its members efficiently, got an advantage. Thus, monogamous marriage was born.

Second, those groups had an advantage in which individuals helped each other and worked as a team. That was useful in war, in hunt and in economic activity. Thus, biological moral and altruism were born — the qualities, opposite of selfishness as harmful for the group manifestations of hierarchical and self-preservation instinct of an individual. From the game theory standpoint, if stability of a pyramidal hierarchy is greater, the harsher the leader dominates, and with weaponry, the great equalizer, limiting the harshness, the only way to keep the hierarchy stable is to use negative quantities. Altruism is ambition with a negative sign. To put it simply, the group of people was kept together not only by fear, but by understanding, and by self sacrifice for the greater good. Our primeval ancestor gradually became less animal and more human. And that human behavior started to slowly make its way into the firmware — the instincts.

Gradually, a human pack transformed into a more modern form human society — a tribe. Every tribe was the more viable the more pack instincts were suppressed.

Again, there wasn’t enough time for the evolution to get rid of the herd instincts completely, they keep on conflicting, and working alongside with the new ones.

And finally, the most important. The unit of natural selection no longer an individuals (and genotype), but entire society as well. The new evolutionary arms race ran according to “whichever society can better neutralize the animalistic instincts has the advantage” rule. Since the females did not participate in the conflicts between groups, the biological moral, altruism and ability to suppress instincts evolved mostly in males. Females had no need to evolve anything new — the old animalistic selfish motivation still suited their biological purpose best.

Next section

Functions of a tribe. Tribal hierarchy. Gender relationship in a tribe.

Time to travel to the Upper Paleolithic. Note that the tribe of the era and a contemporary tribe somewhere in Amazon jungle are totally different in genetic and social composition. Although they look the same, a stone age tribe consisted of the (almost) same humans the human pack consisted of. It was raw material for evolution to work on. While a modern tribe is the end result of the fifty thousand years of evolution, an evolutionary dead end, either due to inability of this particular ethnicity to develop, or a remnant of a broken and degraded society.

Let us examine the tribe of the stone age. Men hunted, supplied women and children with meat, and protected them from predators and enemies. Women and elders worked in the cave (or camp) and gathered whatever food they could find nearby. Children grew up alongside the women and old men, learning about life from the women’s gossip and old men stories. Every biological unit had a well defined function and position within the tribe.

Men fulfilled the outer, most dangerous functions — hunt, defense, war, acquiring loot. These require physical strength, bravery, agility, powerful brain, curiosity, ability to learn, ability to work in teams, ability to sacrifice oneself for the group. This is why friendship, mutual aid, long term planning, ability to act under extreme stress and taking the group’s need into consideration are characteristic of male’s behavior. Men were a buffer between the group’s reproductive core (women and children) and aggressive environment, were cannon fodder for the society and raw material for evolution’s experiments. Only the strongest and most viable males got to reproduce. Without men, a tribe could not survive. Birth of a boy, future hunter and warrior, was considered a good luck — the more hunters and warriors, the stronger the tribe.

Children are simple. Their purpose is to survive, grow and learn. They were kept alongside women and older men to streamline the learning process from the women’s and old men’s talking. Children did not require any special education or upbringing, for their instinctive programs corresponded to their way of life. As children grew, they took greater participation in adult life, until they became adults, and that was it. None of the still existing tribes have any special education programs for children.

Old men. As a man’s reproductive function, and hormones (and the power of instinct) fades away, he becomes calmer (wiser), and more talkative. Likes to teach the young and verbally recollect his own young years. The old people kept the experience and knowledge of the tribe and fulfilled the role of the information and education center. With the increased level of satiety and safety a tribe could afford to put the survived old people on well fare, especially since the role they fulfilled made the tribe’s next generation more competitive.

Women’s basic purpose is reproductive. It takes several years to conceive, to bear, to birth and to raise the child till he or she can more or less function on his or her own. A woman was a very valuable, reproductive part of the tribe. She was always put in the safest and coziest place the tribe could afford, right next to the food and fireplace. A woman was a very valuable spoil of war. However, if there were not enough men to feed and protect all women and children a woman lost all her value, and some societies even resorted to female population control via female infanticide, burying wives with their husbands and other methods we nowadays consider barbaric. For a society, male is just as invaluable as female. A woman also duplicates the knowledge and learning center functions — in cases old men just did not make it (this explains why women are so talkative).

In order to fulfill her purpose, a woman needs to survive, by any means necessary, and to keep her children alive, to the best of her ability. To excel at this, a woman needs a set of qualities completely different from those men need to excel at hunting and fighting. Namely, adaptability to changes in the tribe and ability to avoid danger, care about herself first, self-centeredness, cunningness, shrewdness, conservatism, cowardice. Moral sentiments, sense of duty, integrity are, on the other hand, harmful, for if a woman becomes a war bounty, she needs to adapt to the winner’s tribe and to continue the winner’s lineage, as the stronger and more viable male. This is what is required for evolutionary advancement of human species, highest biological imperative. A woman must fall in love with the winner, accept his customs and believe in his gods, and do it all sincerely, while moral principles, traditions and men from her previous life must be forgotten as soon as possible (Stockholm’s syndrome).

There is another very important quality a woman needs to survive and to raise her children. She must be able to make a man — a smarter, stronger and more independent being than she is — to provide for her and to protect her. When the need arises, she must be able to put the man between her and the danger, to hide behind his back. To put it simple, a woman must be able to control a man.

These are the basics of functionality of the different elements in a stone age tribe. Let us forget for the time being about old men and children, we are interested in women in the context of their relationship with men. Men and women are two kinds of beings, with distinct function, and, therefore, physiology and behavior, and, most important, with different instinctive behavior. One should not be fooled by the fact that both men and woman look somewhat the same, can talk and are called humans.

And now, dear reader, lets examine how these two elements interact. Men and women. The first question is the question of power. Who controls who, and how. We will also use the term ‘dominate’. The dominating (higher) being the one that controls the dominated (lower) being. The methods of domination can be both physical and psychological. A lion tamer uses both a stick method, and the carrot method. The tamer’s goal is extraction of material resources to provide for himself, and the lion, while it serves the purpose. Similar relationship we can observe on the farm (farmer – cow), in the office (manager — worker), etc.

We will start with the smallest viable human commune — a family in the wilderness.

A family’s structure is simple and rational.

Woman with children stays in a safe cave with fire and food store. Her area of competence and domination — household, children and relationship with the man. If there is need for skins for clothes, or food, she lets the man know. And the man knows that if he does not provide for the family’s needs, the wife will not be graceful to him, she will nag him, he will lose comfort in the home and won’t get any pleasure from having sex. He knows that his wife, and children, whom he values and loves, will suffer and might die. Therefore, man complies his wife in her area of competence and provides for family’s needs. This way the woman successfully dominates in her area, with methods being psychological — sexual pressure.

The man’s area of competence is the buffer zone between the household and the environment. He takes care of the relationship between the family and the world at large. In the case of danger, he commands the woman to run, or to hide, or, if game became too scarce, to take the children and belongings and to move to a new place. The woman knows that if she does not obey, the man will get angry and beat her, furthermore, bad things such as enemies, starvation, predators might come, and she and the children will perish. Therefore, the woman complies the man in his area of competence. Also, the woman knows, that without rest, the man will not bring much from his hunting, he might even die and leave her and the children without meat and protection. The woman is very afraid to lose her man, she is gentle with him and tries to make the cave a good place for rest and pleasure, to cook the food more delicious. This way the man dominates in his area of competence, with methods being physical and psychological (fear)

The factor that limits the man from spreading his dominance over the woman’s area is the instinctive concentration of his attention on the outer world. A man’s world is separated into two opposite parts — vanguard and rearguard. Vanguard is the environment, that has to be defeated, conquered and exploited for resources. Vanguard is where “they” are. Rearguard is his estate, where he can recuperate and lick his wounds, where the women and children are that he brings his catch to. Where someone waits for him and supports emotionally. Where he feels good. Where “we” are. That rearguard has to be managed only when it is endangered. Without rearguard, without a place to rejuvenate a man is more vulnerable. And he has no reason to fight for resources with the environment, if there is nobody to use these resources.

The main factor that limits the woman from spreading her dominance over the man’s area is self preservation instinct, fear of the environment. A woman must survive at any cost and keep the children alive, this is her main purpose. She has no right to risk herself, fighting the environment, this is what men are for. Instead of fighting, she should get scared and run away. Woman’s fear of everything, including harmless frogs and mice is a manifestation of this instinctive program. If a woman dominates too harshly, if she demands too much from the man, nags him, pressures him emotionally and refuses sex — the man will leave, and she will be left alone with the hardships and dangers she is so afraid of. Instinctive fear of the world and fear to be left without a man is the emotional background of every woman, including modern ones. This fear is the main regulator of the life of the stone age tribe. If life is hard and dangerous, if the tribe is at war or is migrating, women fear, and men dominate. If a tribe is in a (short) period of abundance, it makes most sense to focus on the reproduction. Women stop being fearful and make the men to provide for them and their children. A woman’s world is too separated into two part — her “nest”, and “everything else”. The men are a part of everything else. A man could be used as a buffer between her nest and everything else, and thus become a part of her nest — temporarily.

To put it simply, in the ancient traditional balanced family everyone does his or her job, does not interfere with that of others’, really, really needs the partner, and, of course, values him or her.

This natural structure exists in the modern world when a family is an atomic unit of production of something that involves hard labor, for example, a farmer’s family. The man works in the field, creating resources, the woman works in the comfort and safety of the house, creating life support for the man and the children. A classical scene, in which the man comes home, and the woman serves dinner she cooked, and which is interpreted as “kitchen slavery” by the effete feminists, has a completely different meaning. The man needs to rest and eat before going back to the field. This is a part of the technological process, separation of labor which is needed to achieve highest efficiency. The author knows from personal experience of being in the agricultural business for many years. Man won’t even imagine to dominate in the house, if the technology of his feeding and resting is kept. Woman won’t get involved in the men’s business, if the family is adequately provided for. And she will not pressure him too much, for she will face starvation if the man leaves her for another woman and stop providing for the family. Such a pair is a balanced and stable system

One more, very important, thing. Imagine that you are the Creator (God, Nature, Evolution, name does not matter). You need to make a stronger, more independent and active being serve the weaker, less independent and active being. How would you design it? The solution is obvious — make the strong and smart one unable to make it without the weak one. It would also help if the strong being didn’t really understand the the methods and goals of the weak being. Could not perceive adequately. This is exactly the way it is designed. For a man, a woman is a “mystery”. Man is tied to the woman via sex. Not just physiologically, through necessity of releasing sexual tension, but psychologically as well, through the need to feel needed and appreciated, which is in hierarchical instinct group. A man simply does not feel complete without a woman, and can’t do anything about it. It is, of course, more complicated, and we will get into details further in the book, but the sexual attachment is the main one. Homo sapiens is not the only species, male member of which are attached to females via sex and have to get it via courting and feeding, but there is a major distinction. For most other species this attachment is episodic, and only lasts for the duration of mating period. Biologists refer to this as “inversion of domination”. I.e. normally it is males, as the stronger individuals, who dominate. They can even rob a female of her food. During inversion it is the other way around — females dominate, and males feed and please them in hopes for sex. In our species, the mating period lasts through the entire adult life. And women have an opportunity to dominate over the men all the time, starting from pubescent age. Have you ever seen a man forcefully take woman’s food? No, he wines and dines her in a restaurant in hopes to get a ration of sex. Or provides for her for life for regular sex.

The sexual attachment is, of course, not one sided. Women get pleasure from sex as well, but this attachment is of different kind, its purpose is to reinforce the biological choice and to keep the genetically superior procreator, so the woman’s pleasure mostly depends on whether or not her female instinct considers this particular male a top genetic material.

In natural conditions, the balance of power depends on whose area of competence, and which context the activity takes place in. When times are prosperous, it is females who dominate. When times are dangerous, and fight for survival intensifies it is males who dominate. When conditions change, domination inverts. Either the woman, in fear, hides behind man’s back and lets him lead, or, when conditions change the other way, the woman controls the man and directs his activities to better service her and her children. The more militant the society is, the more men dominate. The harder the life of a social group, the more men dominate. The safer and easier life is, the more women dominate.

So, to answer the question about who has the power in a man/woman pair, the female takes the dominating position if there is no external threat present. When there is, it is the male. Switching places, inversion of domination occurs at the command of instinctive programs, which get activated by change in external conditions.

Having dealt with a pair, let us examine the hierarchy of a tribe that consists of large (100+) amount of individuals of both genders. The first difference between a tribe and a family is a large and powerful buffer section — there are many men in the tribe. I.e. loss of a single man is not dangerous for the tribe’s survival, and it has no effect on tribe’s reproductive capacity — males make a line to procreate. Second is that the tribe is not uniform, there are strong and weak individuals, smart and stupid, etc, and, what is important for our narrative — there are high-rank and low-rank, high-instinct-drive and low-instinct drive.

The hierarchy of the tribe is the same pyramid we have seen in a pack. The position in the hierarchy (rank) is determined by general viability of the individual. In an ancient tribe the viability is measured using the same set of criteria, as in a pack — rank potential (ambition) plus physical ability plus aggressiveness. The pyramid is being kept from collapsing not as much by the harshness of the leader, but by rational motivation and understanding, and altruism of the lower levels.

The pyramid of power is topped by the leader — the most aggressive and strongest warrior. He stone axe is the fastest and most accurate in the tribe, and challenging his power is dangerous. Psychologists call this man ‘alpha’. Ethologists call this man ‘high-rank’. Below the leader — the strongest and most aggressive men of the tribe (after the leader) — mid-rank gammas. Every one of them has a chance to take the leader’s place under the right conditions. Below them — the rest of the men, low-rank omegas, who don’t even dream about becoming a leader, but do dream about and aspire to become mid-rank.

High-ranks get the best and fattest cuts. They are adored by women. Since we are dealing with biological foundation and basic instinctive programs of our species, it makes sense to use the ethologists — scientists who study animal behavior and instincts — terminology.

Traits of a high rank (according to Protopopov):

High self esteem, self evaluation, and low evaluation of others.
Lack of any self doubt.
Self comfort as one of the top priorities.
Optimism, confidence in the future.
Boastfulness, complacency.
Tendency to make fast decisions.
Ability to act with disregard for others’ opinion and problems.
No reflexivity.
High threshold of realization of own’s guilt.
Determination, entrepreneurship, initiative, perseverance.
Difficulties with self-criticism, and poor acceptance of criticism.
Big managerial, social and material (financial) ambitions.
Good organizational ability.
Openness, impudence, extravertness.
Stubbornness, obtrusiveness? selfishness.
High conflict resistance.
Sexually successful.
Low-rank traits (according to Protopopov):

Low self-esteem, tendency to form inferiority complex.
Ability to bear with discomfort and dangerous life (and work) conditions.
Tendency toward pessimism and depression, insecurity in the future.
Indecisiveness, hesitation and rethinking before making a decision.
Dependency on the opinion of others, fear to offend, reflexivity.
Low guilt threshold, shamefacedness (feeling of guilt appears at the slightest cause).
Conformism
Lack of career or material ambition.
Low organizational skills.
Altruism, self sacrifice, self criticism.
Respect toward authorities, religiousness.
Reservness, introversy.
Shyness, compliance, modesty, law-abidness.
Sensibility and sensitivity.
Sexual failure.
Women are, in a sense, to the side — they are not in the men’s hierarchy, they form a hierarchy of their own, position in which depends on the position of woman’s man in the hierarchy (if any), and/or how much resources she managed to squeeze out of mid- and low rank men. Women unite quickly when they need to throw men a scandal. Women’s part of the tribe forms the reproductive core of the tribe, which is a lot more cohesive than men are. And not just psychologically, but physiologically as well. Each and every woman gives stares to the leader and the strongest warriors. None of them like weak men. Which makes perfect sense from biological standpoint — the next generation should be viable, therefore, it should be fathered by strong, viable men. A weak and non-viable should not reproduce, even if there is a surplus of women. This is the reason behind practice of polygamy in many cultures. A viable (and, consequentially, rich) man has many women, and fathers many children. Many animal species follow the same pattern — strong males have harems, and weak ones have no chance to mate with a female. Everything is rational and logical from evolutionary standpoint.

For as long as the tribe was small, all human instincts corresponded their biological purpose and their lifestyle. The majority of men in a tribe were strong and quite aggressive, with high rank potential and with behavior controlled by the instincts. In other words, they didn’t think about the meaning of life much, and lived as they wanted, lived a simple life. What they wanted was dictated by aforementioned instincts. Human desires and emotions are manifestation of instincts that control the human. People, who live by their instincts, by their desires and emotions, are called high-instinct-drive. Living by the mind and reason — low-instinct drive. We are most interested in the high-rank low-instinct-drive members of our tribe. Psychologists call such men ‘beta’. These are the men, who trust their reason over their feelings. In the stone age tribe, this beta man was either the shaman (apprentice), or a skilled hunter, who preferred the excitement of the hunt to the struggle for higher spot in the hierarchy. There were very few of them, because it was still more advantageous from evolutionary standpoint to be a high-instinct-drive. Besides, a high-rank low-instinct-drive was very disliked by the high-rank high-instinct-drive leader, whose male hierarchical instinct recognized a competitor — both the shaman and a successful hunter had a lot of respect from their fellow tribesmen, had their own opinion and interests, which invariably undermined the leader’s authority. However, the leader needed both the shaman and the successful hunters, and, since neither really aimed to take his place, he tolerated them — in small quantities. Women’s female instinct failed to understand why the betas are unlike the others, and perceived low-instinct-drive as low rank. I.e. very few women could love them. In the following millennia, as the societies grew in size, the betas role has grown, they reproduced and built our civilization.

For understanding the rest of the book, it is imperative that the reader memorizes the following terms:

High-rank — confident, successful, cool.
Low-rank — weakling and loser.
High-instinct-drive (high-primative in the original) — living by the emotions and desires (instincts).
Low-instinct-drive (low-primative in the original) — capable of rational behavior, of using rationality to suppress emotions and desires
Rank potential — ambition, ability to grow in rank
Types of males:

High-rank high-instinct-drive — rowdy presumptuous untrainable and uncontrollable, constantly proving himself in fights. A chief and leader in the ancient world, a loser-alcoholic or bandit today.
High-rank low-instinct-drive — confident strong and smart male. Shaman or skillful hunter in the ancient world, successful businessman, manager or professional today.
Low-rank high-instinct-drive — loser, coward and a crud.
Low-rank low-instinct-drive — weakling and coward, but trainable. Food for tigers in the ancient world, small clerk today.
Mid-ranks combine the qualities of the low-ranks and high-ranks in various proportions. Interacting with low ranks, they act as high ranks, interacting with high ranks, they act as low ranks.

No matter how low the instinct drive is, it is never at zero — a human can never suppress his instincts completely, only to some extent. High-instinct-drive can’t do it all. Furthermore, instincts are able to turn the mind off. For example, a high-instinct-drive child might ignore anything a teacher says because his instinct does not perceive the teacher as authoritative, high-rank enough. If we raise the authority of the teacher, or bring the elements of game, the block disappears, and the child starts to learn. I.e. instincts can be manipulated. Another example, man’s mind says that the man needs to lose some weight, but the mind is no match for the food instinct. In this case, the man can convince himself that he needs to lose weight to become more attractive to young women, and the reproduction instincts starts to work against the food instinct, which makes it easier for the mind. These methods are used in psychotherapy. When instincts control the weak mind, it is called stupidity. When instinct control the strong mind, it is called passion.

To summarize, the stone age tribe consisted mostly of high-instinct-drive individuals with high rank potential. They were controlled by instinctive behavior programs both of the pack level, and the tribe with pair structure level. These programs formed when people lived in small groups and were surrounded by wild nature, and they corresponded to these conditions. The main difference between tribe and pack level instincts are the weak altruistic instincts, biological moral, low-instinct-drive and the behavior in a male-female stable bonded pair.

Everything described in this chapter, all the qualities, behavioral elements and baseis of relationships, that have appeared during the hundreds of thousands of years of evolution of our genus and dozens of thousands of years of evolution of our species, the behavioral elements and and basics, have been genetically embedded as congenital instincts. It is hard to accept something that every biologists knows — WE HAVEN’T CHANGED SINCE. Sure, the lion cloth is now called a mini skirt, is made of a different material, and all the woolly mammoths have been eaten. Everything else — the same. Everything we just saw a the tribe of our ancestors — is consolidated in our instincts (congenital biological behavioral programs) today. Our contemporary civilized life consts of the bits and pieces of these programs, while mind, upbringing and education service them, and, sometimes, correct them to a small extent.

Our species formed when humans lived in small groups — a family, a small tribe. We have ingrained programs for survival and living in such a small group on the brink of starvation and surrounded by danger. Our instincts haven’t changed — but the environment did. And our instincts no longer correspond to our environment, instincts control and direct as as if we still live in the stone age, while we are surrounded artifacts of technological civilization.

Such evolutionary nonsense is rare, but not unheard of. For example, honey bees is a tropical species that has adapted to the cold climate of the glacial period. They didn’t have evolutionary time to adapt to the cold physiologically. While any fly, living in a temperate climate, can freeze during the winter and revive in the spring, the bees die from frostbite at eight degrees Celsius (fifty Fahrenheit). To keep the temperature warm during the cold weather, the bees gather honey during the summer to fuel their winter activity — forming a cluster around the queen, and shivering. If there wasn’t enough honey gathered, the bees die from cold. If there was too much honey gathered, the bees die still — they fill all the combs with the gathered honey and run out of space to raise the new generation. Bees also have a habit of making a nest in a place that would be good in tropical climate, but is unsuited for wintering. I.e. neither physiology, nor instinctive behavior of bees is well suited for the conditions they live in.

Next section

Balance of Domination. Patriarchy and Matriarchy.

As discussed in the previous section, both human pack and human tribe, as a well formed (in evolutionary sense) natural animal system, were well balanced and effective in their natural habitat. The development of material culture, the rise in satiety and safety level led to the system becoming imbalanced, to the inconsistency between instinctive behaviors and the new condition This should have led to evolutionary adjustment of these instincts, however…

The moment a man figured out how to attach a chipped stone to a durable stick, he got himself a weapon of unmatched effectiveness, a weapon that allowed to strike from a distance farther than a hand’s length. This is the pivotal point of evolution, the point at which human became a super dangerous predator, a predator with powerful weapon and powerful brain. A conceptually different being, which managed to provide for itself a level satiety and safety never seen before. And a being with very weak biological moral. These changes occurred so quickly, the biological evolution could not keep pace and change the instincts, the firmware of our ancestors. The human system became progressively imbalanced. The “steal” instinct made men to take loot from other men. The female instinct made the women to make the men to bring more and more food, and to incite fights between the men. Which led to armed conflicts within the tribe, and loss of high number of men, which made the tribe non-viable. Any misunderstanding could escalate to an armed fight to the death.

Improvements in material culture led both to strengthening and weakening of society. The strengthening was due to higher levels of satiety and safety, weakening was due to loss of men in internal conflicts.

Furthermore, the gender domination balance was shifted. There are two factors that shift the power balance between genders toward matriarchy As shown before, altruism and rational motivation are mostly male traits, while domination is manifestation of the selfish hierarchical instinct, which was stronger in women.

On the other hand, stronger, more numerous and powerful male buffer part of the tribe weakened the fear women felt toward the environment. The more warriors and hunters in a tribe, the better their weaponry, the safer and more nourished the life of women, the more confident the women became. And the more confident a woman, the greater her desire and willingness to dominate others. The woman who is not afraid of anything or anyone starts provoking conflicts to raise her status. This is made easier by the women’s tendency to unite against the men, while men compete with each other for place in hierarchy and for access to female body.

What happens when there is an imbalance of domination toward matriarchy? Women start raising boys more prone to control and manipulation, more altruistic, non-aggressive, weak and focused on fulfilling women’s whims of the moment. Weakening of the men means the leader’s instinct switched off in all men of the tribe, men are controlled by the mid-rank and low-rank instinctive programs. With every generation the matriarchy grows stronger and the men grow weaker. At some point, the spiral is broken by strong aggressive men of neighboring tribe, who kill the weak men, capture the women and put the women into their (winners) cave. Matriarchal tribe goes extinct. This explains why there are no pure matriarchies left, and societies close to pure matriarchies can only be found in isolated parts of the jungle, at the evolutionary junkyard. Matriarchy is lethal for human society, and, like a virus that kills the host, did not spread. Only those societies survived and advance, which found something to counterbalance the matriarchal tendencies, for the moment the imbalance toward matriarchy reached certain point, the tribe perished. It is incorrect to say that there was an evolutionary period, when humans lived under matriarchy, no, matriarchy was at some point a barrier in the way of ever accelerating evolution of our species, and that barrier was overcome. The last tribes without counterbalances were annihilated some twenty thousand years ago.

Image twelve. Matriarchy as depicted in art of various epochs.
Image 12-1. Venuses of the upper paleolithic. The “oldest pornography”. Images of dominating women, which suffer from obesity in the condition of high safety and satiety. It is noteworthy that the figurines are faceless. The face of the dominating, aggressive woman is not attractive to the man, who made the figurine, and same rule applies to modern artists.
Image 12-2. A man and a woman of a balanced society. Sculpture from ancient Egypt, Louvre collection
Image 12-3. The death of the large matriarchal society at the hands of the patriarchal one. Ancient bass-relief that depicts a battle with the amazons. Louvre collection.
Image 12-4. Depiction of dominating women in contemporary Russian cartoons. Compare with paleolithic Venuses.

Similar matriarchal deviations can be observed in the animal world. Let me share something I observed when managing, among others, a small hennery (it was to supply factory workers with fresh eggs in an isolated area). Contrary to the natural hierarchy, the pack of hens was headed by a hen. May be the rooster was insufficiently aggressive, or may be the hen contracted feminism from female factory workers, the fact is that it was the hen that started leading the pack in search for food. The rooster, though mated with hens from time to time, had no followers and radiated sadness. He didn’t crow. The hen-dominant was unable to adequately fulfill the rooster’s leading male role — watching out for dangers, because she was too busy with her female role — finding and eating worms and other food. At some point, when the people left the hennery unguarded, a hawk descended and ate the feminist. The rooster took his place of the leader, started to lead the hens around the feeding ground, crowed in the morning, became optimistic, vocal and amorous, and even sometimes attacked humans. He watched the skies closely and gave signal to run and hide. In this case, the nature quickly and cruelly put everyone in the designated place.

One of the natural matriarchy counter balances is the patriarchal inner structure of a society. Regardless of the form of a hierarchy (pyramid, caste, democratic) of the society as a whole, every family has a pyramidal hierarchy that is identical to the structure of a small tribe with bonded pair internal structure. The family is led by a patriarch — a strong man with leader’s instinct enabled. He takes decisions and manages the family property. The other levels of the hierarchy are formed according to age and merit. A patriarchal family can have up to four generations of men. Every adult man is the head of his own, smaller family, and every adult man wants to become the patriarch. In certain cultures such a family can grow to the size of a clan. Since every man has his leader’s instinct on, they are all fully responsible, active and successful. A society that is composed of active men is very effective. Strong patriarchal tendency leads to formation of strong stable society. Ancient Sparta is a good example — it successfully opposed the whole Peloponnese and flourished for seven centuries. The main principle of making a patriarchal structure, and the relationship between people are reflected in mythology of ancient Greeks in the history of the Olympic clan. By the way, when one studies these myths, one does not get an impression that Venus, Hera, Artemis or any other goddess of the Zeus clan is oppressed by the men of the clan, on the contrary, all the goddesses actively participate in the clan’s functioning and compete with men in decision making.

Any imbalance of inter-gender relationship toward excessive male domination can not be found and does not exist. A number of reasons and factors make it impossible. Male protection instinct, the ingrained female ability to manipulate males, and the fact that it is women who get to raise boys up until a certain age — and they do not miss an opportunity to ingrain respect toward women in them. It is very difficult to even imagine a society where all women are slaves used in dangerous and tough jobs, while the male exploitators consume the fruits of women’s labor, while staying at home, warm and safe. The real-world situation is always the opposite. Men create and acquire resources. Women are in the best place possible — place where the resources are stored. Women work the resources over, redistribute them, and are the first to consume them. Those readers who served in the [Russian] armed forces, understand this all to well. Only the most cunning recruits get to serve at the warehouse and the kitchen.

Lately, due to feminist influence, the term “patriarchy” almost became an expletive. It became a system of women’s oppression. In reality patriarchy is a social structure with well defined hierarchy and strict gender based division of labor, in which defense, provision and representation is the male function. A well balanced system of inter-gender relationship.

Large settled non-militarized societies tend toward matriarchy. Small nomadic and militarized societies are immune to it. It is the life style of the society that determines in which gender’s sphere of domination relationship between genders lie.

To summarize, a significant power imbalance toward female domination in a society is lethal for that society, while imbalance toward male domination is impossible. Only a balanced society can survive and develop.

Next section

Birth of Human Civilization

Matriarchal degradation of societies is just one of the many problems that manifested with the development of material culture. It was not enough to simply copy the tribal hierarchy and structure to balance the inter gender relationship, and the society as a whole.

Robbery, theft, mortal feud can still happen in a patriarchal family, and between families. Just like in an imbalanced tribe where people are armed with weapons, but not with morals.

The solution is obvious. If the biological moral will not suffice, an artificial one is in order. A tradition. Based on some strong instinct, preferably several. And doubled by some other system. This is the moment when the humanity needed, and invented cultural tradition and religion. Any further evolution of human societies and development of material culture was simply impossible without them.

Initially, only a small correction was needed. Early religions were myths and stories — the nes that fulfilled learning and educational purposes — that were refitted into horror stories to affect the human instincts through fear and other emotions. Like a mother telling a flamboyant child that if he won’t calm down, the evil babai will get him. The child does not know who or what babai is beyond ‘it is an evil spirit’, but that is enough to calm him down at least a little bit. And if the shaman of a wild tribe, having put on bear hide, amulets, having eaten up toad stools, convulsing in ecstasy, groaning and howling, explains that babai is the evil spirit that lives in a tree near the river and controls the thunderstorm, that will get through to an adult members of the tribe as well. That way, besides the strong man at the top of the hierarchy, the tribe got another leader, a virtual super dominant — a god. Using that god to affect the self-preservation and hierarchical instincts, people could solve the new evolutionary problem the humanity faced.

For example, the tribe’s women, following their animalistic female instinct they have from the times of the pack, seek to form a pair with a high-rank, and to conceive a child from the leader. They also want to swindle the low ranks and get fed in exchange for promises. But a society needs a monogamous marriage. And since there more women than high- and mid-rank men, many women have to make pairs with low-ranks, which does not sit will with their female instinct — the instinct wants sex with and children from a high-rank. To avoid the mess that would otherwise ensue, the society needed addition to the rank of low-rank man — patronage of the super-dominant with the highest rank, god or gods or spirits. “God chooses your husband” is a well known maxim, that was used to pacify the female’s instinct and to make the woman accept her low-rank husband. Part of the super high rank of the god in human hierarchy, part of the divine was bestowed upon the man.

Another example, the fear toward the omniscient and powerful super dominant was used to create an effective taboo system — a ban on some actions, that were against the interests of the tribe. One can commit a crime such that the leader won’t find out, but noone can hide from the all-seeing eye of the god. Punishment is inescapable. This fear of supernatural inevitability allowed to introduce an artificial moral in the daily life of society. A society needed something more than a mortal leader, that can easily be killed, but some invincible immortal omnipotent and all-powerful superleader. And that superleader was born. And took the highest place in the hierarchy — right above the mortal leader. God or gods with top god at the top.

Thus, the greatest compensating mechanism was born, purpose of which was to neutralize the animalistic instincts of men — religion and cultural tradition. It was the religion and tradition that allowed to use the wealth and advantages of material culture while neutralizing its deficiencies. It was religion and tradition that allowed Humanity to evolve and to progress socially and technologically at a lighting fast pace. Unlike the ancient homo sapiens, Neanderthals lacked imagination with abstract thinking and, being unable to create religion as a system of suppressing their pack instincts, got stuck in an evolutionary dead end. Hundred thousand years was not enough of a leg up, they remained at the level of a pack until extinction.

The evolutionary melting pot of Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic produced new, balanced societies. The History of Humankind Civilization has began.

Next Chapter

Cultural layers and compensation mechanisms. Religion as the Great Balancer.

We have descrobed the pack and the tribe stages of human historical development, but it is not enough to achieve our goal — the modern world looks nothing like it. We see vague patterns in the relationship between a man and a women, while details differ and depend on time, place, culture and other factors. Our goal is to understand everything, so lets look at how the human society evolved from a stone age tribe to the plethora or different structures we see today.

In its daily life, a tribe has to fulfill both the reproductive functions, and thus act in the interests of the women, and to fulfill the hunting/defensive functions, and thus act in the interest of men. I.e. the tribe needs two power systems, which act in parallel. Every tribe has a chieftain, and a council of elders — the men’s controlling structure. The chieftain is a young and strong warrior. He commandeers the men during the hunt and in battle, he takes care of all the tactical decisions when the tribe interacts with the environment. The wise elders, who keep the experience and traditions of the tribe, do the strategical planning.

But every elder, the chieftain and most of the warriors have wives. And if the chieftain’s wife moaned during sex that she is dreaming about a leopard skin rug, you can be rest assured that the chieftain will lead his band to hunt a boar to the place leopards are known to frequent. To please his wife, if luck is willing. And if the elders’ wives, at their meeting at the creek, decide that the children will have more fun playing with stones at the river shore, the wise elders will make a decision to move their summer camp to the river because there is a lot of fish in the river, and it is easier to hunt big game at the watering place. The decision made by women is conveyed to men, who “make” the decision. If the decision is bad, it the one who made it the second time who is responsible. In both [USSR] party bureaucracy and in contemporary corporations, in order to be promoted to high ranks, a man not only has to be married, but be a good husband as well. He should be controllable by his wife, and through her — controllable by the entire women’s community. Nowadays, this system can be observed in isolated military structures that copy the tribal structure, for example, garrisons in Siberia and Far East. The commander’s wife in such garrisons is an uncrowned queen who solves most social problems and conflicts. Women of the garrison bring their problems directly to her, rather than to the officials. It is more effective. This way, the women form an additional, horizontal branch of power in a society. In men’s presence, the women’s does not have a hierarchy as well-defined as men’s. Although the woman’s status depends on the status of the men she controls, and women do compete for men, they are a lot more interested in making the me n provide for them and their children than in to establishing a pecking order. This is why women support each other and instantly unite against men when their common female interests are involved, this is called women’s corporate solidarity. Men can’t do that.

The power functions are somewhat diffused in the presence of parallel connections, and in two-gender groups the hierarchy is not as strict as in single-gender communes. Any gender-based division of labor leads to division of managerial, power function. In prisons, both men’s and women’s, and in the army, the hierarchy is very strict, similar to the one we see in animals.

The bigger and more powerful the tribe is, the safer the women feel, the easier their life is, and, consequentially, the less fear they feel toward the world, the stronger their domination is, and the more power they take from the chieftain and the elders. At some point, the chieftain feels the competition and opposition to his power. For example, when the chief gathers his men to go hunting, a wife might not let her men go, she wants him to stay and play with the children. Or, a warrior, instead of being fully focused on the coming combat, thinks instead about the pots and scandal his wife threw at him. This all is relevant today. Any manager, when dealing with workers, has to account for the worker’s woman influence on the worker. As the song goes:

Lyrics translation

In this example, due to the woman’s influence, the army lost a soldier. I.e. a woman, who did not provide the rearguard for the man, worked as an enemy combatant. Not in the interests of the victory, but the in the opposite interests. The commander probably wasn’t happy about the death of his soldier…. The tradition to bury widows with their late husbands does not look so barbaric now — it puts a real responsibility on the woman, responsibility for life of her man. And she should carry that responsibility.

Naturally, our chieftain is strongly disinterested in his platoon losing combat efficiency as the result of women’s influence. But, faced with the unity of the women’s commune, he has few options. He can’t beat up some other man’s woman for obvious reason — such conflict will attract every woman in the tribe, and they will throw a scandal the chief can’t withstand. Furthermore, the women will incite every man they can. At the same time, a man who is dominated by his wife can’t handle the problem alone, for he is afraid of her. This is where the elders, and the shaman come into play. The elders with low hormonal background are “wise”, i.e. are not controllable by women, and can use their authority to influence the woman. The know how the ancestors lived, and they keep the tribe’s traditions. The shaman can tell the woman that her ignominious behavior has angered the goddess of the fireplace, and the ancestor spirits are unhappy with her as well. Everyone knows not to mess with gods and spirits. They are not they type the woman played stones together in childhood, as she did with the future chieftain. Of course, the elders and the shaman will demand a fat cut of the catch, but this is not a problem — if the platoon is united, and every hunter and warrior is focused and is in peak condition, the catch will be large enough for everyone.

This how the two compensating mechanisms, the matriarchy counter balances — religion and cultural tradition — were born. As the result of natural selection in struggle for natural resources, and struggle for survival with competitors, only those societies survived that had the mechanisms strong enough to balance the power inside the society, the mechanisms that constantly, daily battled the animalistic pack level instincts. For this reason, any society larger than a tribe had a temple or something similar at the center. The moment the compensatinary mechanisms failed — the women submitted the men, raised boys not as strong warriors, but as their servants, the society degraded into a matriarchy, became ineffective and perished under the clubs, stone axes, and, later, swords of the strong men of neighboring tribes with a balanced system.

But if the compensating mechanism was effective, the tribe flourished.

Of course, the compensation and neutralizing of harmful instinctive programs is not just about the relationship between a man and a woman. As we mentioned earlier, the strongly armed species are also armed with biological moral to avoid inter-group murders. I.e. armed with ingrained instinctive programs that prevent the murder. For example, a wolf, who can easily bite off a deer’s leg, will not use his full strength, and his teeth, when fighting for a position in the pack hierarchy. Furthermore, if the wolf he is fighting with will take a pose of submission, he will stop immediately. Poisonous snakes “fight” each other without opening their mouths, and facing away from each other to avoid any possibility of bites.

Human, as a species, started as a weakly armed one, and had no ingrained biological moral. Once armed and having transformed into a new species, human could not advance further without the moral. Having no time to acquire it via evolutionary ways, human societies invented an artificial moral as an imitation, replacement for biological one and started inoculating it during upbringing and through religion. We repeat this again, because it is very important for understanding of the narrative.

Looking at animals, for example, at a flock of sparrows, we see some irrational behavioral patterns. When being fed bread crumbs, the sparrows constantly fight over one large crumb — when a sparrow grabs one, the others try to take it away. This is instinctive animalistic behavior, we call it “steal” instinct. All the sparrows spent time and energy, but only one will eat the crumb — in the best case, in the average case a larger bird, a pigeon, attracted by the commotion, comes and takes the crumb. Effort is wasted. Once I witnessed a hen, who caught a small lizard. The lizard was not small enough to be eaten in one bite. The hens ran one after another for a whole hour, taking the lizard away from each other. Finally, the lizard was eaten by the rooster. As the result, all hen got hungry and tired. If that hour was spent searching and gathering of worms and other food, everyone would be fed. Fortunately, being an unarmed species, the hens did not kill each other.

Imagine, for a second, that this is how people around us behave. No morals, no laws, no police — nothing that could neutralize the animalistic instincts, everyone mugs everyone else, steals and kills. See the picture? The society will break down into small bands, where all power belongs to the leader. Structures analogous to the paleolithic packs. To prevent this, a religion comes up with “do not steal, do not kill” maxims and creates a psychological barrier that does not allow to steal and to kill. A purely legal ban simply won’t work anywhere outside a policeman’s line of sight. Besides, the policeman himself has the very same instincts and has no biological moral.

The situation is different when the animalistic instincts are neutralized. The efforts of every human are focused on something useful for a society — creation of resources, procurement from the environment, instead of something harmful, such as taking resources from each other. This makes a society a lot more effective and viable (numerous, stronger and richer). This is why no society in the world could develop without a religion and tradition. Without them, it simply can’t compete with the neighbors who had themn.

Here is an example of the simplest compensating mechanism, that can be misinterpreted as female oppression (as told by a geologist, my acquaintance):

“When we were prospecting for ores in Taiga, in Yakutia, we hired and middle aged woman as a guide from one of a local tribe. One night, we were sleeping at the tribe’s compound, and we noticed that the men only allow woman to have small scraps of food. We were outraged at such discrimination, and voiced our opinion. Then, we were explained…

A man is a hunter and a warrior. He can fight off a predator. A woman’s only option is to run, or climb a tree. A fat woman can’t run, or climb trees, and any taiga predator will catch her easily. And since a woman can not keep herself on a diet, the men took care of her. This is how the men extended woman’s life..”

Here is a description of Tasmanians, when the first Europeans arrived:

“The Tasmanians ate mollusks and crustaceans, to get them, the women dived into the see and searched the shore rocks. They had no nets, no hooks and no fishing lines. The women of the tribe weren’t treated with much respect, and, while the men hunted, the women had to do all the other work. At the table, the women sat behind their masters, who, lying on one elbow, like Romans, gave their obedient spouses the rougher bits of food.”

Here, the Tasmanian women could participate in procuring food. Although unable to hunt, they could gather mollusks and to cook. If a woman useful to a society beyond her child bearing functoin, the society is more viable as a whole. This is why women were protected from obesity. Can you imagine a “paleolithic Venus” diving for mussels, or gather any other type of food, if the man does not return from a hunting trip? A clumsy obese womanfigure also can’t do any household chores, nor she can take care of children, she is a ballast for the tribe. Some modern civilized woman are capable of limiting their own food intake and keep themselves on a diet. But high-instinct-drive women of stone age tribes can’t resist the food instinct, they need help, as barabaric as it sounded to low-instinct-drive Europeans.

Patriarchy is viewed by feminists, who live in large metropolises, as system of women’s slavery, but actually is a society that liberated itself from the ballast of obese, parasitic women. Increased its viability. Improved its odds in struggle for survival.

Next section