The Female as Enemy
Simon Sheppard details some of the essential dynamics of human behaviour
Posted December 2004, updated December 2013
What sort of fool arms his enemies? Once during my university days an aspirant politician started his speech with a declaration that he was about to commit political suicide. Thereupon even the most naive politico present knew that it was time to go in for the kill, and what followed was a metaphorical bloodbath, even by the standards of student politics. History is replete with literal bloodbaths following attack by an enemy using weapons supplied by a former ally.
These are instances of what I have termed the “Dynamical Laws” and it is proposed that males cannot help but arm some, at least, of their enemies. I claim that the Dynamical Laws describe the essential dynamic of male-female interaction.
The Dynamical Laws are part of a new system of behaviour analysis called Procedural Analysis. Behaviours are regarded as masculine or feminine according to whether they are advantageous for male or female genes. For example, the optimal male policy for the furtherance of his genes is to impregnate as many reproductive females as possible, while the most advantageous female policy is to secure a single, long-term mate of exceptional fitness who will remain with her and provide for her while she rears children.
The male-female game is the game of opposites: the female policy is to raise the costs of sex, the male policy is to lower it; the male policy is to compete, the female one is to conspire, and so on. However, many males express female characteristics, probably due to females selecting males with traits which are advantageous for them (e.g. females preferring monogamous males as mates). Here we deal not with individuals particularly but with male and female policies.
An important consequence of looking at psychology from an evolutionary perspective is the realization that instincts, or traits, or tendencies, do not have to accord with reality to be advantageous. If, for example, a conviction of being “hard done by” is advantageous and heritable, that is sufficient. Human perception is extraordinarily susceptible to distortion. Being able to discard an established belief in the light of new evidence is a rare feature, even among males. Males are more analytical, due to differences in the corpus callosum which joins the two hemispheres of the brain: in the male it is narrow and in the female it is wide. This difference explains females’ superior speech ability and males’ more logical outlook. To properly comprehend human behaviour requires cold, dispassionate analysis.
Can females be regarded as an enemy? Disregarding procreation they can, as can anyone else who employs the Dynamical Laws. Using more objective language, females are males’ opponent. Neglecting the specific case of a couple cooperatively raising children, which is an expression of symbiosis, the male-female game is “zero-sum.” For a zero-sum game, if one player wins x points, the other loses x points. In other words, if females win, males lose.
Using this system, and mathematical game theory, human behaviour can be modelled and analysed rigorously. Suppositions may even be formally provable. To discount the Dynamical Laws however, all that is needed is a counterexample. A generalization such as “All swans are white” holds until someone produces a non-white one, and so in this case.
No counterexample to the Dynamical Laws has been found. Detailing the closest one has come will serve as an illustration. This scenario, of a woman killing herself, arose from the offer among a group of friends of £10 for a successful challenge to the Laws.
Suppose that a woman commits suicide. How is her power to do this derived from men? Her ability to use will to over-ride her naturally strong self-preservation instincts involves logic and reason, and these are male characteristics. Darwin’s theory is used to conclude that females’ capacity in this regard is derived from males:
With many closely-allied species, following nearly the same habits of life, the males have come to differ from each other chiefly through the action of sexual selection, whilst the females have come to differ chiefly from partaking more or less of the characters thus acquired by the males.
This is due to what Darwin called “the equal transmission of characters”:
It is, indeed, fortunate that the law of equal transmission of characters to both sexes prevails with mammals; otherwise it is probable that man would have become as superior in mental endowment to woman, as the peacock is in ornamental plumage to the peahen.
The prehistoric situation can readily be imagined of an elder male, with failing strength, struggling to maintain his position of dominance over a group of females (or equivalently, an area of territory), using his wits to resist attempts to depose him by younger, stronger males. Thus the male evolved the ability to suppress his immediate instinct to use brute force, instead applying logic and intelligence to prevail. By the equal transmission of characters females of subsequent generations inherited his power of will.
If our Ms. Thanatos jumps off a cliff there is nothing more to add as far as the First Law is concerned; all that is involved is will; we are finished. If she uses a tool, e.g. a knife or a gun, this is a thing, which falls into the domain of males. Practically all things have been invented, discovered or designed by males.
Lest the suicidal female of our example be considered far-fetched we have the following account of behaviour among the Kuman tribe of New Guinea, in Jens Bjerre, The Last Cannibals (1956), p. 138:
A woman badly treated by her husband has been known to hang or drown herself in revenge, thereby not only putting the man in jeopardy of evil spirits, but also requiring him to pay her family a substantial compensation.
A woman angered into breaking her own possessions in this society can require the person who infuriated her to pay her compensation, although in this case the local currency is tame pigs.
In seeking, as seek we must, the evolutionary origin of the Dynamical Laws we should expect to find a more commonplace application of females’ inherited will-power than jumping off the nearest cliff. The power of will has enabled the female to over-ride her involuntary sexual submission, allowing her to suppress what formerly had been an automatic response as in animal mating. Then the female demands more strenuous effort by the male before she accedes; she raises the cost of sex by withholding it.
Alternative strategies exist which achieve practically the same thing. The lioness requires her mate to copulate many times over several days before she ovulates, and by this means she demands fitness in the male, since the diseased or infirm male cannot maintain the necessary stamina. This is in contrast to the domestic cat, which ovulates automatically on copulation.
By making the task of the male as difficult as she possibly can, increasing his load by any means available to her, the human female enhances the fitness of the male. Since by the equal transmission of characters the female shortly acquires his abilities, continuous resourcefulness is required by him, accelerating the evolutionary process and enhancing the fitness of the species as a whole. The dynamic of the Laws, combined with the equal transmission of characters, probably accounts for humans’ rapid evolution.
The equal transmission of characters involves the male, in the long term, effectively competing with a copy of himself. This is a subtle form of the celebrated Tit For Tat strategy (TFT) which has been the object of computer models and is a very common and robust strategy in nature.
A basic expression of the Dynamical Laws relates to neurosis. Neurosis in this system is the condition which arises when one stimulus evokes two or more responses.
Neurosis is readily induced in males by sexual signalling. Males are understandably sensitive to sexual signals emitted by females, and such signals are especially deserving of attention because unlike, say, putting a hand over one’s mouth or raising the eyebrows, sexual signals are obviously viable evolutionarily. “Their eyes met across a crowded room and now they live in Surbiton with four kids” might be the stuff of romance but to the analyst, the female issued the Direct Look Signal, the male responded to her signal and progeny (offspring) resulted. Whether this took place in Surbiton recently or eons ago in a cave beneath where the M62 now is is unimportant; the significant point is that the mechanism confers reproductive advantage and passes from generation to generation.
Two obvious male responses to a female sexual signal are whether to approach or not. Increasing males’ neurotic load is the function of the high degree of indiscriminate signalling (signals not directed at a particular individual, such as dress) in contemporary life.
The neurotic male further empowers the female and thus a reinforcing cycle is established. When a male asks “You will turn up, won’t you?” he informs his target that others have not, significantly increasing the likelihood that she will do likewise. Signalling or saying the opposite of what you mean is probably a symptom of acute neurosis. Neurosis likely accounts for sublimation of male effort to activities such as high art and science: the male seeks refuge from female illogicality and the neurotic conflicts thus induced, directing his energies instead to impressive displays and rational pursuits.
Another example of the Dynamical Laws in contemporary life is “Kiss and Tell,” whereby a female is empowered by her affair with a public figure then uses that power against him by selling her story to the press, or writing a book about it.
The laws which allow women their freedom of dress, movement and action, and protection from violence, are the product of a male system of government, and these laws are sustained by masculine force. Then there is the panorama of Western – i.e. European male – technological achievements, such as the printing press, the transistor and television. Feminists who use male technology and an economic system of male creation to publish books denigrating men are employing the Dynamical Laws, as are “rap” artists who sing about “killing a cracker” or “popping a cop,” since every stage of the reproduction chain being employed is the product of white male ingenuity. A country which copies a British invention, mass-produces it (again employing Western technology) and then floods the country with such products, destroying our indigenous manufacturing industry, is also applying the Dynamical Laws. Similarly a foreign nation may purchase Western military technology and then use that technology to threaten or attack the West.
The events revealed in late 2002 concerning the Promis software (Prosecutor’s Management Information System), involving Robert Maxwell and the Israeli Secret Service, are a marvellous instance of the Dynamical Laws. Having purloined a copy of the “meta database” software, written by the American Bill Hamilton, the Israelis disassembled it to obscure its origin. Then Maxwell was one of several to provide front organisations which sold the software to intelligence agencies, banks and telco’s worldwide, except that now a “back door” had been added enabling the Israelis to download their own copy of much of the data the software had been assigned by its new owners to collect.
Using technology he has himself supplied, the male is assailed by constant promotions of sex via print and television, raising its perceived value and hence the costs that can be imposed upon him. He faces an army of lawyers and other agencies eagerly awaiting reports of “abuse.” He is practically emasculated by an intrusive government which, following an inexorable feminine trend, can prosecute him for expressing “racist” (i.e. true male) sentiments. In such manifestations the male is confronted with an opponent he has himself empowered and which, once armed, is doing its very best to disarm him. Power is accumulated for the sole purpose of achieving more power. Such is not the policy of a symbiont, to whom advantages accrue to mutual benefit, but of an adversary.