Dschinblog

Frontseite

2020-12-31T16:57:00.000+01:00

Frontseite klingt sehr martialisch, so nach "Im Westen nichts Neues".
Aber das soll damit nicht gemeint sein.
Frontseite heißt Titelblatt, heißt: Was will dieser Blog mit dem seltsamen Namen?

Dieser Blog ist ein Männerblog. Er ist ein Männerblog, weil ich ein Mann bin und damit die männliche Sicht der Dinge einbringe. Er ist ein Männerblog, weil er die Anliegen der Männer- und Väterbewegung fördern soll, wie ich sie sehe.

Für mich sind Ziele der Männerbewegung:

rechtliche und gesellschaftliche Benachteiligungen für Männer zu beseitigen,
Männern ein positves Selbstbild zu geben,
männliche Anliegen in die Gestaltung der Gesellschaft einzubringen,
die Entwicklung von Buben zu selbstbestimmten und selbstbewußten Männern zu fördern,
Männern einen offenen und ungezwungenen, unverklemmten Zugang zu ihrer Sexualität und ihrer Körperlichkeit zu ermöglichen,
Männer ein ungezwungenes und offenes Verhältnis zu anderen Männern zu ermöglichen

Für mich sind Ziele der Väterbewegung:

rechtliche und gesellschaftliche Benachteiligungen von Vätern zu beseitigen,
die Rolle des Vaters in der Familie und im Bezug zu seinen Kindern zu stärken
das Miteinander von Vätern und Kindern zu fördern,
Vaterschaft stärker gesetzlich zu schützen
Vaterschaft und die wichtige Rolle derselben in der Gesellschaft stärker zu verdeutlichen.

Ich versuche in diesem Blog durch eigene Postings und durch Zitate, Diskusstionsgrundlagen und Argumentationshilfen zu geben.

Ein weiteres Thema, das mich beschäftigt ist, der Mensch in Staat und Gesellschaft und hier besonders die Nation als Gemeinschaft der rechtlich und politisch Gleichen.

Weitere Themen fließen ein, sofern sie mir wichtig sind, aber die obengenannten Themen sind die Kernthemen dieses Blogs, jedenfalls bis auf Weiteres.

Ein Wort zu Urheberrechten.

Ich verfolge mit meinem Blog keine kommerziellen Interessen. Es ist auch nicht meine Absicht, Autoren um ihren gerechten Lohn für geistige Arbeit zu bringen. Ganz im Gegenteil, es ist mein Ziel, Autoren, die zu den von mir ins Zentrum des Interesses gerückten Themen Bedeutendes zu sagen haben, bekannt zu machen, meine Leser auf diese Autoren aufmerksam zu machen und zu weiterer Lektüre zu animieren. In sofern betreibe ich eher Werbung, indem ich Texte in meinen Blog aufnehme.

Auch ist mir sehr wichtig, dass die von mir verfassten Texte (Atrial) und die lediglich kopierten Texte (Times) sich schon im Schriftbild unterscheiden. Zusätzlich gebe ich stets die Quellen an und verlinke wenn möglich darauf.

Sollte sich dennoch jemand, in seinem Urheberrecht verletzt sehen, so genügt eine kurze Mail an dschindschin@email.de und ich lösche bzw. verkürze die entsprechenden Passagen.

Meine Leser weise ich darauf hin, dass Veröffentlichungen in meinem Blog nichts am Urheberrecht der ursprünglichen Autoren ändert, an die man sich also zu wenden hätte, wollte man die entsprechenden Texte anderweitig veröffentlichen.

Mal was grundsätzliches .... zum Feminismus

2011-11-04T11:52:00.004+01:00

Dieser Artikel von Stefan Sasse erscheint mir so wertvoll, dass ich ihn in Gänze in meinen Blog übernehme, damit er für alle Zeiten erhalten bleibt.

Gleichzeitig will ich aber auch auf den Blog des Autors verweisen, der zu vielen Themen Kluges zu sagen hat:

Oeffinger Freidenker

Montag, 8. November 2010

Mal was grundsätzliches...zum Feminismus

Von Stefan Sasse

Den Oeffinger Freidenker gibt es nun seit über vier Jahren. Viele Themen wurden bereits mehrfach in unterschiedlichen Beiträgen behandelt, so dass es dem Autor oftmals unnötig erscheint, bestimmte Anspielungen oder Einstellungen näher zu erläutern. Seit 2006 hat sich die Leserschaft jedoch stark vergrößert, und für die, die neu dazugekommen sind, mag nicht immer alles sofort klar sein, was der Oeffinger Freidenker schreibt. Die neue Serie "Mal was grundsätzliches…" soll diese Lücke schließen, in dem noch einmal eine Zusammenfassung zu bestimmten Themen gegeben wird. Diese Folge befasst sich mit dem Feminismus.

Die Zeit der großen feministischen Diskussionen ist lange vorüber. Paragraph 218, Gleichberechtigung im BGB, Einführung des Zerrüttungsparagraphen ins Scheidungsrecht - alles Siege der Feminismusbewegung, seit zwei Generationen vertraut. Heute wirkt Alice Schwarzer wie ein Fossil, nicht mehr wie Vorkämpferin einer radikal neuen Bewegung, und im Islamhass scheint sie derzeit ein probates Mittel zu sehen, den Mangel an Aufmerksamkeit wettzumachen, der ihre eigene Feminismusversion glücklicherweise kennzeichnet. Bevor wir richtig ins Thema einsteigen, beginnen wir mit einer kurzen Bestandsaufnahme.

Nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg wurde die Gesellschaft so patriarchalisch, wie sie es seit der Vor-Bismarck-Zeit nicht mehr gewesen war, obgleich diese „Ordnung“ bereits damals etwas Künstliches hatte. Frauen waren durch diverse Gesetze tatsächlich und, vor allem, durch die herrschenden Konventionen im täglichen Leben benachteiligt. Unter anderem war es ihnen nicht erlaubt, ohne Zustimmung des Mannes ein Konto zu führen. Dies alles änderte sich ab den 1960er Jahren, als selbst eine Adenauer-CDU sich nicht mehr mit allem Mief, den sie an sich hatte, gegen den Zeitgeist stellen konnte. Der Druck von FDP wie SPD (vor allem aber letzterer, die bereits im alten Kaiserreich die Idee der Gleichberechtigung der Frau vertreten hatte – von Männern, wohlgemerkt, was oft unterschlagen wird) tat sein Übriges, spätestens seit der sozialliberalen Koalition. Die gesetzlichen Schranken fielen, und das Gesellschaftsklima wurde in den frühen 1970er Jahren so offen wie seither nie wieder. In genau diese Zeit fällt das Wachsen der feministischen Bewegung die, wie immer mit einiger Verspätung, aus den USA importiert wurde.

Hierzulande wurde sie unangefochten von Alice Schwarzer dominiert, die sich von ihren radikalen Vorbildern in den USA wie Valerie Solanas (Attentäterin Andy Warhols und Verfasserin des Traktrats „Zur Vernichtung der Männer“) inspirieren ließ und die feministischen Forderungen mit der Stern-Aktion „Wir haben abgetrieben“ in die Schlagzeilen brachte, die sich zwar im Nachhinein als gefälscht herausstellte, da viele der Frauen inklusive Schwarzers selbst gar nicht abgetrieben hatten, aber mit dem Abtreibungsparagraphen ein publikumswirksames Schlachtfeld schufen. Die CDU konnte am Ende noch durchsetzen, dass ein verpflichtendes Beratungsgespräch mit dem Versuch, die Frau von der Entscheidung abzubringen, vor eine Abtreibung gesetzt wurde, aber die Initiative blieb ein großer Erfolg der Frauenbewegung. Die letzten Schranken fielen unter ihren wuchtigen Schlägen und dem nur noch schwächlichen Widerstand der letzten Reaktionäre. Der Zeitgeist hatte gesiegt.

Nur ist der Zeitgeist ein windiges Ding, denn er weht schnell weiter. Die Feministinnen wurden bald von ihm selbst überholt. Ihre radikale Rhetorik, die in die 1970er Jahre gepasst hatte, in denen Mao, Marx und Che gelesen und diskutiert wurden, entfernte sich immer mehr von der Wirklichkeit, und die Kritik wurde immer ritueller. Schwarzer und die EMMA wurden Teil des Systems, das sie früher bekämpft hatten, was sich beispielsweise in der Verleihung des Bundestverdienstkreuzes 1997 und, noch viel frappanter, in der Teilnahme an einer BILD-Werbekampagne 2006 zeigt, für die Schwarzer aus den eigenen Reihen viel Kritik einstecken musste, die sie rüde wegbürstete. Auch die Erstürmung der EMMA-Zentrale in den 1990er Jahren durch Frauen (!) als Reaktion auf deren aggressive, männerfeindliche Berichterstattung zeigte, dass Schwarzers Bewegung ihren Zenit überschritten hatte. Versuche, die Lücke auszufüllen, gab es seither genug, doch waren diese nicht erfolgreich. Thea Dorn und andere, die einen „neuen Feminismus“ vertreten wollen wirken wie neoliberale Epigonen und konnten nie Breitenwirkung erzielen, auch, weil sie die Schwarzer-Rezepte letztlich nur ein wenig an die neoliberale Ideologie anpassten.

Genau da aber liegt der Hase im Pfeffer, wie wir noch sehen werden. Bevor ich wirklich starten will, müssen wir noch einen kurzen Simone-de-Beauvoir-Crashkurs hinter uns bringen, denn sie ist die eigentliche Erfinderin des Gender Mainstreaming, das derzeit im akademischen Leben vor allem, aber auch im politischen Bereich großen Einfluss hat. Sehr stark heruntergebrochen hatte de Beauvoir die Idee, dass es zwei Geschlechter gibt: ein biologisches (sex) und ein soziales (gender). Das erstere ist offensichtlich durch die Geburt festgelegt, das zweitere allerdings werde einzig durch die Erziehung implementiert. Es wäre also, so der Schluss, möglich, einen Jungen als Mädchen und ein Mädchen als Jungen aufzuziehen, vorausgesetzt natürlich, so etwas wie eine Jungen-Erziehung gebe es überhaupt. Das biologische Geschlecht habe demnach nichts mit dem Sozialen zu tun; ein Mann könne durchaus eine soziale Frau sein und umgekehrt.

Ich habe anfangs das Postulat aufgestellt, dass de Beauvoirs Ideen meiner Meinung nach die falsche Fragestellung enthalten. Um diese Theorie zu beweisen, wurden sehr krude und bisweilen grausame Versuche angestellt, von denen der der kanadischen Zwillinge nur der bekannteste ist. Dieser handelt davon, dass einem von zwei männlichen Zwillingen bei der Geburt der Penis so verletzt wurde, dass man ihn amputieren musste. Ein Pionier des Gender Mainstreaming überredete die der Idee aufgeschlossenen Eltern, den Jungen vollständig als Mädchen zu erziehen. Dieser Versuch scheiterte noch vor der Pubertät grotesk, als der Junge trotz aller Mädchenerziehung mit Pink und Tanzen aggressiv männliche Merkmale zu tragen und zur Schau zur stellen begann. Auch Wiederholungen des Versuchs endeten ähnlich und oftmals tragisch. Das allein widerlegt die These natürlich nicht, schließlich wächst das Kind ja in einer Umwelt auf, die nicht „gegendermainstreamt“ ist. Ich denke aber dass die Fragestellung, ob die Theorie richtig ist oder nicht – dass also das soziale Geschlecht nur konstruiert sei – letztlich nicht weiter führt. Viel wichtiger ist die Fragestellung: Wollen wir, dass das so ist? Und hier scheint die Antwort recht eindeutig nein zu sein. Trotz großer medialer Unterstützung und großzügiger Förderung (Professurstellen für Gender Mainstreaming und zahllose Frauenbeauftragte sprechen eine deutliche Sprache) hat sich die Idee bislang nicht durchgesetzt, wird als fremd und unnatürlich empfunden und ist eher rückläufig, als dass sie neue Anhänger gewinnen würde. Nur die Wenigsten scheinen überhaupt von Weiblichkeit oder Männlichkeit Abstand nehmen zu wollen. Wohlgemerkt: damit sind nicht Aufgabenverteilungen gemeint. Dem Gender Mainstreaming geht es nicht, wie früher der Emanzipationsbewegung, um die rechtliche Gleichstellung der Frau, sondern um die Aufhebung aller außer den biologischen Geschlechtsunterschieden. Ich gehe davon aus, dass dies den Wünschen einer deutlichen Bevölkerungsmehrheit (deutlich über 90%) diametral widerspricht.

Das ist auch den Apologeten des Gender Mainstreaming bewusst. Sie erklären deshalb, ein „Umdenken“ müsse stattfinden und, vor allem, aktiv gefördert werden. Zu diesem Zweck sei es beispielsweise notwendig, durch eine gezielte Frauenförderungspolitik die Menschen daran zu gewöhnen, dass Frauen sich in Führungspositionen befinden. Ich bin der Meinung, dass dies in höchstem Maße verwerflich ist. Und damit sind wir endgültig bei der Frauenpolitik.

Es kann kein Zweifel bestehen, dass die rechtliche Gleichberechtigung längst erreicht ist. Dies wird auch von der Frauenbewegung nicht angezweifelt, nicht einmal von ideologischen verbohrten Altlasten wie Alice Schwarzer. Stattdessen erklärt die Frauenbewegung, dass die „faktische Gleichberechtigung“ nicht erreicht sei. Dazu gehört die Legende von einer gläsernen Decke, die es Frauen nicht erlaube, in Führungspositionen aufzusteigen, weil dort ja nur Männer sitzen, die unter sich bleiben wollen und Frauen deswegen nicht hochkommen lassen wollen. Im gleichen Zusammenhang steht die Behauptung, dass Frauen bei gleicher Tätigkeit um ein Drittel schlechter bezahlt werden.

Das letzte Argument ist besonders lächerlich. Wenn das tatsächlich so wäre würden doch in einer Marktwirtschaft unter starkem Konkurrenzdruck, wie wir sie haben, nur noch Frauen eingestellt, weil sie das Gleiche leisten und ein Drittel weniger kosten. Das passiert aber nicht, nicht einmal in Betrieben, die von Frauen geleitet werden, was auch das Gegenargument widerlegt, dass wieder eine böse weltweite Männerverschwörung am Werk ist. Tatsächlich haben Studien herausgefunden, dass Männer Frauen eher in Führungspositionen aufrücken lassen als Frauen andere Frauen. Das aber nur am Rande. Es ist tatsächlich so, dass sich ganz einfach weniger Frauen für Führungsaufgaben bewerben als Männer. Dies wird auch von der Frauenbewegung gesehen und mit dem Verweis auf die faktisch nicht erreichte Gleichberechtigung, gewissermaßen eine Denkblockade, die sich selbst als minderwertig und deswegen nicht geeignet ansieht, abgebügelt. Frauen bewerben sich gewissermaßen aus einem inneren Minderwertigkeitskomplex nicht.

Auch diese Argumentation halte ich für nicht schlüssig. Ich bin bisher keiner Frau begegnet, die von sich sagt, dass sie als Frau sich nicht für geeignet hält und dabei den Eindruck erweckt hat, eigentlich einen solchen Job zu wollen. Hier stoßen wir auf das Kernproblem, das ich ausgemacht zu haben glaube. Die bisher aufgezeigte Argumentationslinie widerlegt sich teilweise selbst, das mag dem einen oder anderen Leser aufgefallen sein. Die jeweiligen Gegenargumente der Frauenbewegung ergeben kein schlüssiges Ganzes, sondern stehen miteinander im Widerspruch. Fakt aber ist, dass es deutlich weniger Frauen in Führungspositionen gibt. Wirklich deutlich weniger. Eine Frau auf zehn oder zwanzig Männer ist keine Seltenheit. Nur, woran liegt das? Dass mich die Erklärungen der Frauenbewegung nicht überzeugen, die, nebenbei bemerkt, auch ein deutliches Interesse an der Durchsetzung ihrer Argumente trotz faktischer Unhaltbarkeit hat, weil damit diverse sehr gut dotierte, staatliche und damit sichere Stellen einhergehen, die ihre Wortführerinnen einnehmen können, sollte klar geworden sein. Doch was ist der Grund? In ihrem Buch „Das dämliche Geschlecht“ argumentiert Barbara Bierach, dass Frauen an ihrer Lage komplett selbst schuld wären. Nur 3,4% Frauen in Vorstandsetagen liegt ihrer Meinung nach daran, dass sich Frauen dumm verhalten und fauler sind als Männer. Sie nützten die Chancen nicht, die ihnen längst gegeben sind. Sie unterstützt außerdem ebenfalls die Behauptung, dass Frauen andere Frauen am Aufstieg hindern würden.

Doch auch diese „selbst schuld“-Argumentation ist nicht überzeugend. Ich halte das Problem für tiefer liegend. Um das zu erklären, möchte ich noch einmal kurz ausholen und einen Ausflug in die Geschichte unternehmen.

Oft hört man aus Kreisen der Frauenbewegung, dass die Männer über 2000 Jahre die Frauen unterdrückt hätten. Praktisch immer ist der Unterton dabei „und jetzt sind wir mal dran“. Dieser Unterton durchzieht die gesamte Frauenpolitik, was auch der Grund ist, warum ich es ablehne, die Begriffe Gleichstellung oder Gleichberechtigung zu benutzen, denn diese Politik zielt offenkundig auf eine Bevorteilung von Frauen, was sie auch offen zugibt. Das aber hat, selbst wenn die 2000 Jahre Unterdrückung Realität wären, keine Legitimation. Man kann ein Unrecht nicht dadurch beseitigen, dass man Neues schafft. Das geht niemals und ist weder ethisch noch moralisch vertretbar. Dazu kommt, dass das Argument mit den 2000 Jahren nicht wahr ist.

Denn einen überwältigenden Teil der Menschheitsgeschichte waren die Menschen einfach nur arm. Den mittelalterlichen Bauern, den Industriearbeiter des 19. Jahrhunderts interessiert die Frauenbewegung nicht. In einer so prekären Lage müssen alle zusammenarbeiten, nach ihren besten Kräften. Die körperlich schwächeren, von den zahlreichen Geburten noch zusätzlich geschwächten Frauen übernahmen dabei oftmals die Hausarbeit, der Mann die schwere Feldbarbeit. Entscheidungen fielen ihm ebenfalls zu, aber wer die Realität eines Haushalts kennt weiß, wie wenig weit her es mit solchen Entscheidungen oftmals ist. Obwohl Männer auch heute noch dank eines höheren Erwerbsanteils deutlich mehr verdienen als Frauen und oftmals Allein- oder Hauptverdiener sind, gibt es siebenmal (!) so viel Verkaufsfläche für Frauen wie für Männer, und geben Frauen auch entsprechend mehr aus. Anzunehmen, dass dies früher anders war, wäre grenzenlos naiv. Keine Bevölkerungsgruppe lebt 2000 Jahre lang in unerträglicher Unterdrückung. Es ist schlicht die Überheblichkeit der ersten Frauenbewegung, die das für sich reklamierte.

Diese entstand im 19. Jahrhundert und war von Anfang an eine reine Oberschichtenveranstaltung. Die Frauen, die für das Recht stritten, Universitäten und höher Schulen besuchen oder Eintritt ins Schwimmbad zu erhalten waren alle gutsituiert und finanziell mehr oder minder unabhängig. Viele von ihnen hatten die damals üblichen Dienstmädchen in ihren Diensten, was niemand von ihnen als Problem auffasste – eben weil die Frauenbewegung eine reine Oberschichtenveranstaltung war. Es brauchte die Entstehung einer bürgerlichen Mittelschicht, um auf solche Ideen erst zu kommen, denn wer um sein Überleben kämpft, diskutiert darüber nicht. Man kann die Entstehung der Frauenbewegung also durchaus als Beleg großen gesellschaftlichen Fortschritts in jener Zeit sehen, wie auch die Entstehung der Feministenbewegung in Deutschland nicht zufällig in die 1970er Jahre fällt, als erstmals breite Bevölkerungsschichten am Wohlstand teilhatten. Eine Oberschichtenveranstaltung ist der Feminismus trotzdem immer gewesen – und auch geblieben.

Und genau das ist in meinen Augen der Grund für die Krise, in der die Bewegung derzeit steckt, der Grund für die „faktisch“ nicht erreichte Gleichberechtigung, die nach den Buchstaben des Gesetzes längst besteht und angesichts der gewaltigen Förderanstrengungen eigentlich längst erreicht sein müsste. Autorinnen wie Thea Dorn oder eben die zitierte Barbara Bierach propagieren ein Idealbild, das einer objektiven Idealität vollkommen entbehrt. Sie konzentrieren das ganze Lebensglück auf das Erreichen einer „Karriere“, ein Ziel, das dabei zum reinen Selbstzweck vorkommt. Ich erinnere mich noch an unsere Abi-Zeitung, als sich bei „Zukunftsplänen“ bei deutlich über der Hälfte der Frauen die Trias „Studieren, Karriere, Familie“ fand – ein Zeugnis des durchschlagenden Erfolgs der Frauenbewegung in dieser Bevölkerungsschicht, könnte man meinen. Und wie bereits anfangs festgestellt ist es der Erfolg, der den Blick für die Probleme versperrt.

Denn die Karriere ist zum einen für breite Bevölkerungsschichten überhaupt keine Perspektive. Kassierinnen bei Aldi, Bandarbeiter bei Opel, Reinigungskräfte bei Was-weiß-wem, Arbeitslose – für sie alle ist die Karriere, die die Frauenbewegung propagiert (die im Übrigen praktisch ausnahmslos aus Akademikerinnen besteht) überhaupt nichts, was mit ihrem Lebensbild in Einklang zu bringen wäre. Für die Männer übrigens auch nicht. Die Unterstellung, dass jeder nach einer Karriere in der freien Wirtschaft als alleiniges Rezept zum Glück streben und dieses auch erreichen könnte ist irrig und vergiftet die gesame Bewegung. Es ist das hässliche Kind der Beziehung, die die Frauenbewegung mit dem Neoliberalismus eingegangen ist und die in Barbara Bierach pars pro toto ihren Niederschlag findet. Viele Menschen – nicht nur Frauen, sondern auch Männer – trachten überhaupt nicht nach einer Karriere. Sie wollen andere Wege zum Glück gehen. Die Bemühungen der Frauenbewegung sind ihnen dabei fremd, entsprechen nicht ihrer Lebenswirklichkeit. Der Schleier über dieser Lebenslüge der Frauenbewegung wurde 2006 kurz weggerissen, als Eva Herman mit ihrem „Eva-Prinzip“ an die Öffentlichkeit ging. Bevor sie den Kardinalsfehler des Nazi-Vergleichs beging und damit vollständig aus der Debatte verdrängt wurde, erhielt sie gewaltige Zustimmung gerade von den Frauen und wurde von der Frauenbewegung in einer Aggressivität angegangen, die zuletzt Esther Vilar erfahren musste. Herman hatte einen wunden Punkt getroffen, indem sie sich gegen das Ziel einer Karriere aussprach. Die Aggressivität der Diskussion stand in keinem Verhältnis zu den Thesen, denn Herman erklärte ihre Variante nicht einmal für die alleinseligmachende, wie dies die Frauenbewegung tut, sondern forderte Wahlfreiheit – was die Frauenbewegung aber nicht zugestehen wollte.

Damit sind wir am Ende angelangt: Die Frauenbewegung, so der Schluss, vertritt eine Ideologie, die an der Lebensrealität der meisten Menschen vollkommen vorbeigeht. Ich widerspreche der Feststellung der Frauenbewegung, dass alte Klischees und Denkmuster noch nicht überwunden sind, überhaupt nicht. Die Frage ist aber, was man dagegen tun kann. Die Frau, die heute Abitur macht, studiert und danach in die Wirtschaft geht muss nicht mehr gefördert werden. Wenn sie nicht in der Lage ist, ihren Weg zum Glück zu finden, dann ist sie, wie von Barbara Bierach schon festgestellt, tatsächlich selbst schuld. Unterhalb dieser Schwelle, die ich als Oberschichtenveranstaltung bezeichnet habe, stellt sich diese Frage gar nicht. Weder Mann noch Frau brauchen hier eine spezielle Geschlechterförderung auf dem Weg an die Spitze. Hier ist die soziale Fragestellung eine völlig andere, da die materiellen Grundlagen überhaupt nicht gegeben sind. Diese müssen erst geschaffen werden; vorher wird hier kein von oben oktroyiertes Umdenken stattfinden. Alle Quotenregeln dieser Welt werden dabei nichts helfen, weder den Frauen noch sonstwem. Quotenregeln widersprechen sich selbst. Allein ihre Existenz zeigt, dass die Gesellschaft offensichtlich eine andere ist. Wer meiner Argumentation so weit gefolgt ist weiß außerdem dass sie ebenfalls am Kern vorbeigeht. Diese Erkenntnis hat die Frauenbewegung jedoch nicht, dafür ist ihr Bündnis mit den neoliberalen Ideen zu eng, ist sie sich ihrer eigenen sozialen Zusammensetzung viel zu wenig bewusst. Stattdessen wiederholt sie sich in immer gleichen Phrasen und alteingesessenen, der Wirklichkeit entrückten Mustern.

Die Ideologie der Frauenbewegung hat längst totalitäre Züge angenommen. Sie lässt keine Kritik mehr zu und ist blind für die Wirklichkeit, die von dem Bild abweicht, das sie selbst gezeichnet hat. Nur so ist Schwarzers beständige aggressive Rhetorik gegen Männer zu erklären, nur so Thea Dorns und Barbara Bierachs Karrierefixiertheit, nur so die heftigen Reaktionen auf Eva Hermans Versuch, das Meingungskartell der Frauenbewegung zu brechen. Sie befinden sich auf einem starren, fixen Pfad, den sie nicht mehr zu verlassen in der Lage sind. Dabei vertreten sie die Mehrheit der Frauen überhaupt nicht. Das haben sie noch nie, aber früher hatten sie eine gesellschaftsverändernde Idee, die wirkungsmächtig zum Durchbruch kam. Nichts ist mächtiger als eine Idee, deren Zeit gekommen ist, sagt Hugo. Die Frauenbewegung ist der Beweis, dass nichts so tot und leer ist wie eine Idee, die von der Zeit überholt wurde. Sie reiht sich ein mit dem Patriarchat der Adenauer-Zeit und vereint sich so mit ihrem alten Erzfeind. Sobald eine neue Generation von Frauenrechtlerinnen neue Ziele formuliert und den Zeigeist damit trifft, wir ihre derzeitge Riege dorthin verschwinden, wo auch die Marx’schen Lesezirkel der 1970er und die Ideen Carl Schmitts gelandet sind: auf dem Müllhaufen der Geschichte.

Zu wenig gute Männer

2011-10-11T17:07:00.001+01:00

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Too Few Good Men

Kay Hymowitz speaks for many women when she asks: “Where have the good men gone?”

Hymowitz has written a book entitled: Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men into Boys. It has not yet been published-- thereby I have an excellent excuse for not having read it-- but Hymowitz has offered a tantalizing sampling in today’s Wall Street Journal. Link here.

As it happens, her question is not an imponderable riddle. The answer is simple: women are having difficulty finding good men because they themselves are the good men they are looking for.

Hymowitz says that the culture has effected: “a radical reversal of the sexual hierarchy. Among pre-adults, women are the first sex. They graduate from college in greater numbers (among Americans ages 25 to 34, 34% of women now have a bachelor's degree but just 27% of men), and they have higher GPAs. As most professors tell it, they also have more confidence and drive. These strengths carry women through their 20s, when they are more likely than men to be in grad school and making strides in the workplace. In a number of cities, they are even out-earning their brothers and boyfriends.”

While I would agree that American culture has succeeded in producing a gender role reversal, I am less sure that we should be calling it a hierarchy reversal.

Nonetheless, women are brought up to be hard-working, self-sufficient, career-driven, and fully capable of protecting and providing for themselves.

Boys are most often taught that their striving toward manhood is pathological or misogynistic, thus something that they must repress and overcome.

While I disagree with Hymowitz when she starts talking about life scripts and developmental models, I agree that our culture has degraded and discredited the ethic of manly behavior.

As she puts it: “It's been an almost universal rule of civilization that girls became women simply by reaching physical maturity, but boys had to pass a test. They needed to demonstrate courage, physical prowess or mastery of the necessary skills. The goal was to prove their competence as protectors and providers. Today, however, with women moving ahead in our advanced economy, husbands and fathers are now optional, and the qualities of character men once needed to play their roles—fortitude, stoicism, courage, fidelity—are obsolete, even a little embarrassing.”

As she implies, manliness is an ethic; it involves living your life according to certain values. To my mind this makes it radically different from a lift script.

When feminists declared war on men and on masculine values, they did not intend to produce a generation of post-adolescent males who can barely hold down jobs, who have no interest in getting married and settling down, and who are lying around the house drinking beer, playing video games, and stuffing themselves with chips and dip.

But when you change cultural policy, you are responsible for the outcome, regardless of whether it was what you intended. Feminists may not have intended to unman men; but, as the old saying goes: they broke it; now they own it. At the very least they should own up to it.

In a way, it is only too obvious. If women abandon the traditional feminine values connected with making a home and caring for children, well then, someone has to hold down the fort.

If you cannot afford a housekeeper and a nanny, then the only person who is left to do it is a man.

Ah, yes, but you will object here: these modern men are anything but homebodies; they are overgrown adolescents who refuse to take any responsibility for anything. They are hanging around the house making a mess; they are not doing what women used to do at home.

How can I reconcile this seeming contradiction?

Easily: these post-adolescent males are not really about to become effeminate homebodies; they are hyper males, almost a caricature of a negative masculine stereotype.

Their immaturity is nothing more than a social protest movement. They are trying to tell us that we, as a culture, discourage them from developing their true masculinity in the world, and that they have found a default position.

As they make their way through the educational system, boys are most often taught that manliness is misogynistic, abusive, and oppressive. They are taught that great men, the heroes of the past, committed unspeakable horrors and should not be emulated.

If men are so intrinsically corrupt and venal, then they must be disempowered, removed from the world where they cause so much trouble by making war and by running the financial system into the ground. Where can these evil creatures do the least trouble: at home.

Now, let’s try a quiz. Do you believe that men should protect and provide for women? Is that an essential part of the masculine ethic?

Or better: Do you think that Lara Logan should have been given special protection when she was covering the events in Tahrir Square? Given that several male journalists had already been beaten badly by the crowd, should she, as the mother of young children, have hesitated before placing herself in a potentially dangerous situation, one that would was more dangerous because she is a woman?

Do you believe that women have a specific vulnerability that requires them to be more cautious about where they go and what they do? And do you believe that this vulnerability requires men to protect and provide for them?

With a few notable exceptions, most people who have commented in public have said that Lara Logan had every right as a journalist to be in Tahrir Square last week, and that if you do not think so you are a reactionary deviant.

I am not just talking about the feminists who always scream about how anyone who wants to acknowledge feminine vulnerability or the responsibilities of motherhood is a stone cold misogynist.

Last week this same sentiment was expressed by Sean Hannity-- yes, that Sean Hannity, of all people-- who defended the feminist position that Lara Logan should have been on Tahrir Square on his television show… to the point where he declared that any other position was hopelessly misogynistic and unworthy of discussion.

I bet you did not know that Hannity had become a radical feminist.

Unfortunately, the public debate has descended so far into name-calling that it is difficult to take sides.

Here is the way the question is most often framed. Those who believe that because a woman has a gender-specific vulnerability she should be more cautious about where she goes and what she does, are publicly excoriated for meaning to say that if a woman is sexually assaulted then it is her fault or that she was asking for it.

Anyone who thinks this way should grow a brain.

It really takes a minimum of intelligence to understand that if a woman is sexually assaulted it is never her fault or her responsibility.

From there it does not follow that a woman should take unnecessary risks, even when a man might more easily assume said risks. A woman should avoid walking through dark alleys at night or taking the subway at 3:00 a.m. Every young woman has heard from her parents that she should never allow herself to be in a situation where her intentions could be misunderstood.

With the exception of feminists and Sean Hannity, most people understand that it is reasonable and ethical for a mother of young children to take less personal risk than would a man in the same situation.

For those who believe in Darwin, women are more valuable and less easily replaced than men. Thus, human societies have tried wherever possible to keep women out of harm’s way, to protect and defend them.

Where are all the men, the ones who might protect women? They are home, drinking beers, playing video games, and having a jolly good time. Their message to young women: you are on your own.

Die Opferverliebtheit des Feminismus

2011-07-08T16:57:00.000+01:00

Prof. Dr. Gerhard Amendt

Die Opferverliebtheit des Feminismus
oder: die Sehnsucht nach traditioneller Männlichkeit
Die Zukunft der Männer jenseits der Selbstinstrumentalisierung für Frauen

Im Anschluss an die 68er-Bewegung und die Ausbreitung radikaler Varianten des Feminismus hat sich ein wenig schmeichelhaftes Bild von zeitgenössischer Männlichkeit ausgebreitet. Männer abzuwerten ist zur misandrischen Alltagsroutine in Presse, Wissenschaft und Pädagogik geworden. Viele suchen die Ursachen für diesen schlechten Ruf in Politikvarianten des Verdammungsfeminismus (Amendt 2004), obwohl es diesen als soziale Bewegung seit geraumer Zeit so lebendig gar nicht mehr gibt. Allenfalls äußern sich noch einige persönliche Exemplare, die nicht müde werden, Männer abzuwerten, und dabei mehr von ihrer persönlichen Abneigung gegenüber Männern mitteilen als von der Art, wie Männer wirklich sind und wie sie sich in Beziehungen verhalten.

Andere Feministinnen wiederum suchen die Gründe in dem, was sie selbst veröffentlicht haben. So haben schon im Sommer 2001 Ikonen der modernen Frauenbewegung, der misandrischen Männerbeschimpfung müde, ihre eigenen Positionen zum Geschlechterdiskurs neu formuliert. Es waren Revisionen, die sie vollzogen. So sagt die Friedenspreisträgerin Doris Lessing, dass sie »zunehmend schockiert über die gedankenlose Abwertung von Männern ist, denn die dümmsten, ungebildetsten und scheußlichsten Frauen können die herzlichsten, freundlichsten und intelligentesten Männer niedermachen, ohne das irgendjemand was dagegen tut«. Die Abwertung des Männlichen sei »so sehr Teil unserer Kultur geworden […], dass sie kaum noch wahrgenommen wird«. Und letztlich erklärt sie die »Emanzenkultur für denkfaul und heimtückisch« (Lessing 2001).

Am weitesten ging die Revision der französischen Philosophin Julia Kristeva. In der Internetausgabe der New York Times vom 14. Juli 2001 sprach sie sich gegen das Konzept von Multikulturalität aus, nach dem die Identität des Einzelnen von der Zugehörigkeit zu einer Gruppe ausgehe. So hatte der Multikulturalismus erklärt, dass Gesellschaften durch Gruppenidentitäten von Männern und Frauen, Schwarzen und Weißen, Homosexuellen und Heterosexuellen, Türken und Deutschen etc. bestimmt würden. Kristeva machte rückwirkend geltend, dass solche Zuordnungen allenfalls mit archaischen Stammeszugehörigkeiten zu vergleichen seien, dass das aber gerade kein Indiz für Demokratie und Menschenrechte sei. Obwohl sie diese Position lange selber gefördert hatte, meinte sie, dass »die Gruppenidentität, die von einigen Feministinnen, Schwulen und ethnischen Führern als Steigbügel für ihre nachdrückliche Rechtfertigung genutzt werde, unzeitgemäß und totalitär sei. Die Freiheit des Individuums« – eben unbesehen, ob schwarz oder weiß, männlich oder weiblich etc. – »gehe dem Communitarismus voraus und die politische Betonung von sexuellen, ethnischen und religiösen Identitäten zersetze die Demokratie« (Kristeva 2001). Folglich ist auch Politik, die Identität aus dem Gegensatz von Mann und Frau herleitet, letztlich demokratiefeindlich und totalitär, wie das der Feminismus in staatlichen Bürokratien hinlänglich demonstriert.

Durchaus in diesem Sinne ist die gängige Diskriminierung von Männern das Ergebnis multikultureller Gruppenidentifizierung. So zählt eben nicht mehr der einzelne Mann in seiner Individualität, sondern nur seine Zugehörigkeit zum männlichen Geschlecht (Hormonausstattung, Penis, DNS, Hirnstruktur etc.). Aus dieser Zugehörigkeit zu einer Gruppe wurden zahlreiche Vorurteile über Männer abgeleitet. Ein typisches ist: »Der Mann auf der Straße ist ein potentieller Misshandler […] von Frauen« (Kavemann/Lohstöter 1984, S. 10). Es ist die Gruppenzugehörigkeit, die ihn dazu macht, nicht, was er tut oder unterlässt. »Die individuellen Besonderheiten des prügelnden Ehemannes treten hinter seiner Zugehörigkeit zum herrschenden Geschlecht zurück« (Honig 1986, S. 45). Er wird nicht als »Herr Müller« oder »Herr Meier« beurteilt, weil ihm Eigenschaften als Angehöriger einer Gruppe zugeschrieben werden. Diese seien naturhaft und trotz Kultur für Veränderungen nicht erreichbar. Daraus leiteten Autorinnen männliche Herrschaftsphantasmagorien und implizite Ohnmachtzustände über Vagina oder weibliche Hormonausstattung, DNS etc. ab.

Anders formuliert: Wenn ein Roma Zigaretten stiehlt, sind alle Roma Diebe, und wenn ein Jude Bankier ist, dann sind alle Juden Bankiers. »Das heißt für die Frau, die Männer ihres sozialen Umfelds mit anderen Augen zu sehen, immer misstrauisch und wachsam zu sein« (Kavemann/Lohstöter 1984, 10).

Der Aufruf, die Geschlechterbeziehungen nach Vorurteilen wahrzunehmen, gleicht im Prinzip der Dynamik, mit der zur Feindschaft gegenüber Fremden oder zum Antisemitismus aufgerufen wird. Mit der Mobilisierung der Gruppensozialpsychologie werden Vorurteil sowie rassistische oder geschlechtsspezifische Diskriminierung gefördert.

Bei Honig (1986) können wir, wie bei der Mehrheit der Männer, eine typische Verleugnung mütterlicher Gewalttätigkeit beobachten. Sie zeigt sich daran, dass Honig von Männern/Eltern(!) als potenziellen Schlägern/Vergewaltigern und brutalen Repräsentanten des Patriarchats/der elterlichen Gewalt spricht. Er wagt es nicht, die Mutter als Tätliche beim Namen zu nennen. Verschroben äußert er deshalb, dass es nicht nur eine patriarchale, sondern auch eine elterliche Gewalt gibt. Worin der Unterschied besteht, erklärt er nicht.

Damit wird verständlich, warum feministische Gruppen, Feministinnen in Regierungsbürokratien und vor allem Mitarbeiterinnen von Frauenhäusern aus ihrer Gruppenzugehörigkeit Feindseligkeit gegenüber Männern zum tragenden Element ihres Arbeitsalltages machen und Hass und Verachtung als angemessene Antwort auf den Gruppenfeind erleben. Dabei verläuft Psychodynamik nach dem bekannten Modell: wir, die guten Frauen innerhalb der Gruppe, und draußen die bösen Männer der Feindesgruppe.

In den Anfängen der 68er- und Frauenbewegung hatte dieser Gegensatz von Freund und Feind etwas spielerisch Vorwurfsvolles und vor allem den Anschein des Vorübergehenden. Immerhin verflüssigten sich althergebrachte Rollenverständnisse, und solche Neubestimmungen gehen zeitweise recht ruppig über die Bühne. Allerdings verwandelte sich das Spielerische über die Jahre nicht in eine versöhnende Verständigung über neue Beziehungen zwischen Männern und Frauen. Mit dem Aufkommen diverser Feminismusvarianten geschah das Gegenteil. Das Spielerische verfestigte sich immer mehr zur heute herrschenden Ideologie von Frauen als den guten Opfern und Männern als den bösen Tätern.

Warum Frauen in den verschiedenen Schichten der Gesellschaft sich weitgehend unwidersprochen als Opfer der Geschichte haben abstempeln lassen, ist weitgehend unerforscht. Auf jeden Fall ist es weder in Parteien, Verbänden, Kirchen noch in Institutionen wie der Wissenschaft zu einer Zurückweisung des Opferstatus für Frauen gekommen. Ganz augenscheinlich hat das Denken in Gruppenidentitäten Frauen ihrer Individualität beraubt. So hat eine zwanghafte Suche nach allen möglichen Facetten weiblicher Opferexistenz eingesetzt, die den weiblichen Opferstatus als universell ausweisen sollte. Diese Suche ist bis heute nicht beendet. Damit hatte sich die Aufbruchstimmung der neuen Frauenbewegung, die auf Selbstermächtigung (empowerment) und Befreiung von männlicher Versorgung setzte, unter der Hand in eine depressiv gestimmte Weiblichkeit verwandelt. Diese zielte nicht mehr ab auf Befreiung, sondern trat diesen Anspruch an Feministinnen und letztlich einen von diesen zurechtgestutzten, Frauen fördernden Staat ab. Allenfalls in der heutigen Generation der jungen Frauen lässt sich ein sprachloses und teils verbietendes Staunen beobachten, wenn sie in der Literatur, an Schulen oder Universitäten als »Opfer des Patriarchats« klassifiziert werden.

Auf dieses Szenarium vermeintlich nur von Männern zu verantwortender Verhältnisse mussten Männer eine Antwort finden. Sie standen nicht nur als »Misshandler, Vergewaltiger und Patriarchen« da, sondern sie wurden schlechterdings für alles, was sich in der modernen bis hin zur archaischen Gesellschaft an Konflikten ereignete, verantwortlich gemacht. Dazu zählen die Kälte der instrumentellen Vernunft, Pornografie als Gewaltaufruf, zerstörte Umwelt, Krieg, ebenso Diskriminierung von Frauen, Verlust der Religiosität, Gewalt in Partnerschaften und gegen Kinder, und all das, was durch die vermeintliche Universalität des weiblichen Opferstatus und durch die Unendlichkeit der überlieferten Geschichte wirksam war, noch immer wirksam ist und fürderhin sein wird (Rave 1991; Günther 1997).

Aber bedeutsam war und ist bis heute nicht nur die Reaktion der Männer auf ihre eigene Abwertung, sondern ebenso, ob sie ihre Söhne gegen Vorurteile und Verdammnis schützten. Die geradezu grenzenlose Duldsamkeit von Frauen, sich widerspruchslos als Opfer, Benachteiligte, Vergewaltigte, Perspektivlose, Diskriminierte oder Gedemütigte öffentlich stilisieren zu lassen, übersah eines: Je kleiner Frauen sich machten oder von Feministinnen machen ließen, umso geradezu wahnhaft allmächtiger geriet das Bild über die Männer (Farrell 1995). Die Verdammnis der Männer idealisiert sie zugleich als Allmächtige.

Deshalb konnte aus dem Blick geraten, dass allenfalls eine Minderheit von ihnen an den Schaltstellen der Macht steht und den Größenfantasien feministischer Mannsbilder entspricht. Hier deutet sich etwas Rückwärtsgewandtes, d.h. psychisch Regressives, unter Feministinnen an. Nämlich die heimliche Erwartung, dass Männer doch weiterhin stark sein mögen, dass sie aber ihre Stärke nur zum Wohl und nach den Wünschen der Frauen einsetzen. Damit diese nicht enttäuscht werden, und vor allem, damit sie für die Erfüllung ihrer Wünsche nicht selber einstehen oder gar kämpfen müssen. Der Wunsch, dass Männer die allmächtigen Besorger sein mögen, ist als Subtext in allen feministischen Schriften enthalten. Letztlich sind das aber dann die alten Arrangements zwischen Männern und Frauen, an denen klammheimlich festgehalten wird. An anderer Stelle werde ich auf eine politische Manifestation dieser Wunscherfüllung zurückkommen, die umgangssprachlich nichts anderes meint als: Männer bessert euch, dann dürft ihr auch die alten bleiben.

Jean Elshtain Bethke hat schon 1990 zu erklären versucht, warum sogenannte patriarchalische Macht im Mittelpunkt feministischer Ideologie steht: »Mythen der männlichen Macht werden oft dann gerne behauptet, wenn Männer gerade nicht in den selbstsicheren Weisen dominieren, wie der Mythos es verheißt« (ebd., S. 134–135). Demnach wäre das zornige Aufbegehren gegen die Männlichkeit eher Ausdruck von Enttäuschung über deren verlorene Stärke und entspräche dem geheimen Wunsch, dass die alte männliche Stärke doch wiederkehren möchte. Das könnte auch als Angst der Frauen vor den neu gewonnenen Freiheiten interpretiert werden (Bernard 1981). Einer Angst zum Beispiel vor den Freiheiten, wie sie dank der hormonellen Verhütung schlagartig den Frauen verfügbar wurden.

1 Stark sei der neue Mann und auch verlässlich

Wie haben nun Männer auf die rasant um sich greifende Abwertung reagiert, die zugleich auch eine ihrer Väter, Großväter und Urgroßväter war? So wenig, wie alle Reaktionen benannt werden können, so ist doch eine unübersehbar: Die meisten Männer haben durchaus hörbar zu all dem geschwiegen. Zumindest bei oberflächlichem Hinsehen könnte der Eindruck entstehen, als hätten die alltäglichen Abwertungen unter ihnen keine Resonanz ausgelöst und als würde sie all das unberührt lassen. Das mag damit zusammenhängen, dass die Zeitungen, die sie lasen, über solche Themen wie das Erleben ihrer Männlichkeit als Be- und Versorger als naturhafte Festlegung ohne Bewegungsfreiheit, nicht berichteten. Oder dass sie darin nur das ihnen bekannte Nörgeln ihrer Ehefrauen erkannten, welches sie zu mehr Einsatz und höherem Einkommen motivieren sollte.

Aber alle Reaktionen waren individuell geprägt und entsprachen nicht den Klageliedern über » die Männer« als einem einheitlich verfassten Geschlecht, wie es die feministische Theorie in ihren Täterfantasien entwickelte. Doch jenseits des vordergründigen Schweigens, der verweigerten Antworten und der sichtbaren Arroganz gegenüber »endlosen Nörgeleien« gab es unter Männern etwas sehr viel Tieferliegendes, das bislang übersehen wurde und das das Schweigen der Männer bis zum heutigen Tage eigentümlich beredt macht.

Wie immer die feministischen Entwertungen der Männer ausfielen, es waren stets Klagerufe, die gegen sie und sogar männliche Kinder und Jugendliche gerichtet waren (Amendt 2001). Letztlich reimten sich alle darauf, dass Männer als Geldverdiener, als Liebhaber, als Väter oder Gestalter der Gesellschaft versagt hätten. Das bezog sich nicht nur auf die Gegenwart, sondern war im großen Rundumschlag der unbestimmten Kampfkategorie vom »zeitlosen Patriarchat der letzten Tausende von Jahren« eine Verurteilung aller erdenklichen Männlichkeitsweisen. Eben nicht nur im europäischen, sondern im globalen Maßstab jenseits aller nationalen, ethnischen, kulturellen, rassischen, ökonomischen und sozialen Unterscheidungen. Danach konnte kein Mann für sich selber, auch nicht rückwirkend für Väter und Großväter, Folgendes beanspruchen: Ich bin ein Mann oder mein Vater war ein Mann, der stolz darauf sein kann, unter Einsatz seiner Kräfte – früher nicht einmal selten unter Einsatz seines Lebens – für Frau und Kinder verantwortungsvoll gearbeitet, gesorgt und in der Gemeinschaft sich betätigt zu haben. Und genauso wesentlich war es für das Selbstwertgefühl eines Mannes, dass seine Ehefrau dies anerkannte und dadurch die Arbeitsteilung bestätigte, die ihm die Bewährung außer Haus vorbehalten hatte. Erst über diese Anerkennung haben Männer ihre Arbeit als sinnstiftend erlebt. Arbeit allein leistet das nicht. Aus der Familie haben sie die emotionale Gewissheit bezogen, dass ihre Arbeit sinnvoll ist und geschätzt wird. Selbst wenn es über die monotone Arbeit nicht viel zu berichten gab (Amendt 2006). Der Genderfeminismus hat diese Übereinkunft zwischen Männern und Frauen für die Gegenwart und Vergangenheit als Selbsttäuschung klassifiziert. Wie weit ihm das gelungen ist, sei einmal dahingestellt. In dieser oder jener Weise haben Männer die weltbewegende Abwertung allerdings stillschweigend, zumindest ohne hörbare Gegenrede hingenommen (Nathanson/Young 2001, 2006).

Da von dieser Entwertung kein Lebensbereich und keine historische Periode ausgenommen war, strengten sich die Genossen der 68er-Bewegung an, es den Frauen »besser zu besorgen«, als die Väter es den Müttern besorgt haben sollen. Die 68er-Genossinnen hingegen sahen, neben der vaginalen Selbstbesichtigung mittels Spekulum in der Frauengruppe, kaum eine Chance, ihre Sexualität selbst so zu verändern, dass sie befriedigender ausfallen würde. Sie wurden nur zaghaft aktiv, entdeckten aber weitaus entschlossener die Mängel der männlichen Genossen beim Sex. Teile des Feminismus versuchten diese Debatte dadurch zu beenden, dass sie Frauen empfahlen, zur Homosexualität zu wechseln, um repressiver Männersexualität ein für allemal zu entrinnen. Daraus wurde allerdings nichts. Aber dieser Vorschlag erklärt, warum viele Feministinnen, vor allem die in Frauenhäuser arbeitenden, eine Männer hassende Ideologie entwickelten. Nicht selten ging es darum, die eigene Homosexualität zum politischen Konzept zu erheben.

Deshalb hatten schon in den 90er Jahren Wissenschaftlerinnen diesem Feminismus entgegengehalten, dass hinter den überbordenden Schuldzuweisungen an Männer sich wohl Zweifel an den eigenen Fähigkeiten der Frauen zur Selbstermächtigung verstecken könnten. Anstatt sie zum Schmieden ihres Glücks zu ermutigen, würde abermals in tradierter Manier letztlich auf Beglückung durch Männerhand gesetzt. Da die Opferverliebtheit (Amendt 2004) mit so viel Hingabe, wenn nicht zwanghafter Besessenheit gepflegt wurde, wäre eher von einem politisch motivierten weiblichen Masochismus (im Gegensatz zum psychischen in der Vergangenheit) unter Feministinnen zu sprechen. Die Vertreterinnen dieses Komplotts waren politisch sadistisch und fügten Frauen Schaden zu, weil dies eigene Lust- und Herrschaftsfantasien beflügelte.

2 Zwischen Abwertung der Männlichkeit und deren gleichzeitiger Verherrlichung

Die wenigen Männer, die auf die Abwertung des Männlichen reagierten, waren von zwei Motiven beherrscht. Zum einen wollten sie die tiefe Beschämung und die Ungewissheit darüber, was gute Männlichkeit denn überhaupt sein könne, nicht wortlos hinnehmen. Und zum anderen konnten sie sich, ganz im Zeichen einer von der Nähe zur Mutter geprägten Kindheit, nicht davon befreien, sich auch im erwachsenen Leben weiterhin für Frauen verantwortlich zu fühlen (Amendt 1999; Nitschke 1980, S. 129ff.). An diesem verinnerlichten Motiv änderte sich auch dadurch nichts, dass die Mutter zwischenzeitlich durch andere Frauen ersetzt worden war. Dies ist eine grundlegende Erfahrung, die viele Jungen während ihrer Kindheit machen. So wird die Mutter zu einem dominanten Teil ihres inneren Selbstbildes, der ihnen auch als Erwachsenen noch als Kompass den Umgang mit Frauen vorgibt. Unterstützt wurde dies vom Vater, der dafür das lebendige Vorbild bot, wenn er es zuließ, dass die Mutter unbegrenzt auf den Sohn zugreifen konnte. Und wenn er fehlte, wie bei vielen Männern der 68er-Generation, die noch zu Zeiten des Nationalsozialismus oder im Anschluss daran geboren wurden, dann erschloss sich das Wesen der Männlichkeit für diese Söhne vorwiegend aus den Erwartungen, die die Mütter an ihre Söhne als den Statthaltern des Männlichen und als Ersatz für den Vater in der Familie hatten (Amendt 1999). 20 Prozent der Männer waren Halbwaisen, ihre Mütter also Witwen, die auf sich gestellt waren.

Vor diesem emotionalen Hintergrund waren die ersten Reaktionen ausgesprochen mutig. Auch wenn sie dem tradierten Arrangement der Geschlechter nichts Neues hinzufügten, sondern nur dessen Psychodynamik veränderten. Je mehr aber die Frauenbewegung zur puren Schuldzuweisung regredierte, umso sprachloser reagierten Männer auf den Mehltau, der sich über die Beziehungen der Geschlechter legte. Je bärbeißiger der Feminismus, umso schweigsamer die Männer! Das gar nicht seltene Schweigen von Männern in Partnerschaftskonflikten entfaltete sich angesichts der kollektiven Beschämungen und Schuldzuweisungen zu einer ähnlichen, jedoch kollektiv wirksamen Sprachlosigkeit.

Es war der Schriftsteller Volker Pilgrim, der aus den beschämt schweigenden Männern der 68er-Bewegung herausfiel. Er stellte sich den »patriarchatspolitischen« Schuldzuweisungen mutig entgegen, um nicht an den Schamgefühlen zu ersticken, die die feministischen Unwerterklärungen auslösten. Er tat das in dem Buch Muttersöhne, das 1986 erschien und das vor allem unter Frauen großes Interesse fand.

Was unterschied Volker Pilgrim von der Mehrheit der schweigenden Männer? Zuerst einmal nahm er die Vorwürfe des Feminismus über die missratene Geschichte des Abendlandes als ein Produkt zerstörerischer Männlichkeit ernst (vgl. Mitscherlich 1985, 1987). Zu diesem Zweck nahm er sich so ungleiche Figuren wie Teddy D. Roosevelt, Hitler und Stalin vor – in einer nicht angemessenen Verkürzung von Geschichte auf Einzelpersönlichkeiten. An missratenen Männern wollte er Fehlentwicklungen festmachen. Er gab ihnen den Namen »Muttersöhne«.

Zwischen der Eigenart ein Muttersöhnchen zu sein und der zerstörerischen Männlichkeit sah er einen Zusammenhang, der bislang allenfalls in Psychotherapien, aber nicht in politischen Diskursen thematisiert worden war. Wenn Männer destruktiv sind, dann hat das auch mit ihrer unaufgelösten Bindung an die Mutter zu tun. Das ist der psychische Kern von Muttersöhnen. Sie können keine selbstbewusste Männlichkeit entwickeln, weil ihr inneres Leben, sozusagen ihre Seele, von einer dominanten Mutter beherrscht wird. Sie sind weder Herren im eigenen Haus noch selbstbestimmt in dem, was sie als erwachsene Männer mit anderen Frauen tun. Das Zerstörerische, das von ihnen ausgeht, beruht folglich auch auf ihrer Kindheitsgeschichte, die sie nicht abschließen können, weil die Mutter in ihnen weiterhin den Ton angibt und ihrem autonomen Handeln nur begrenzten Raum gewährt. Die Rolle der Männer außerhalb der Familie und im Verhältnis zu anderen Frauen beruht somit zu einem Teil auf verinnerlichten Erwartungen der Mutter der frühen Kindheit (Greenson 1986; Schmauch 1995; Stoller 1974).

Damit steht Volker Pilgrim in einer Tradition, die im Alltagsbewusstsein der Menschen, den Sozialwissenschaften und der Psychoanalyse verankert ist. Demnach machen Männer und Frauen ihre Geschichte gemeinsam, ihre gute wie ihre schlechte und die widersprüchliche ebenso. Nicht nur das Glück entspringt dem gemeinsamen Handeln, sondern auch das Unglück und die alltäglichen Konflikte.

Mit dem Klischee von den guten Frauen und den bösen Männern versuchte der Feminismus diese Alltagsweisheit auszulöschen. Aber Pilgrim wollte sich diesen Versuchen nicht beugen, und die Frauen, die sein Buch lasen, haben fasziniert auf diesen Zusammenhang geblickt. Denn gerade die Nähe zu ihren Söhnen, anders als zu den Töchtern, war Frauen als eine tief befriedigende Erfahrung nur zu geläufig. Aber viele Frauen sind sich bewusst, dass aus dieser Nähe auch Probleme entstehen können.

Mit eigener Forschung unter Mitwirkung von 2.000 Frauen habe ich diese schillernden Seiten erforscht. Viele Frauen fühlten sich dadurch entlastet, dass es ein wissenschaftliches Interesse für diese Brisanz gab (Amendt 1994). Denn die Idealisierung von Mütterlichkeit im Gefolge des Nationalsozialismus und in dessen Fortsetzung durch den feministischen Mainstream hatte sie bislang daran gehindert, kritische Gefühle zum Sohnesverhältnis zu äußern (Amendt 1999). Der Feminismus hat mit seinem polarisierten Bild von den bösen Männern und den guten Frauen diese unter eine rassistisch begründete Idealisierung gezwungen, die mit dem Bild von der reinen arischen Frau des Nationalsozialismus weitgehend deckungsgleich ist. Die historische Kontinuität im Denken von Weiblichkeit und Mütterlichkeit wurde bislang von der Wahrnehmung ausgeschlossen. Auf solche Parallelen hat Götz Aly 2008 in seinem Buch Unser Kampf hingewiesen, wobei er erstaunlicherweise keine geschichtliche Beziehung zu den Müttern im Nationalsozialismus und der Politik der Töchter in der 68er-Bewegung herstellte. Das ist umso erstaunlicher, als er gerade diese »Überlieferung der 68er« aufzeigen wollte. Pilgrim war zumindest gegen die Mütter aufgestanden, die ihre Söhne zu Muttersöhnen machen. Er sagte, dass Mütter selbst hervorbringen, was sie jetzt bedauerten oder worunter sie litten. Dies hat jedoch nur sehr indirekt das Verhalten der Mutter- und Großmuttergeneration während des Nationalsozialismus eingeschlossen.

Mit liebender Hand hätten sie ihre eigenen Unterdrücker oder die ihrer Töchter herangezogen. Da die familiäre Erziehung damals noch mehr als heute in den Händen der Frauen lag, war diese Überlegung von Pilgrim für Frauen nachvollziehbar. Denn was für Hitler, eine seiner Beispielfiguren, galt, musste für das Heer der unbekannten Muttersöhne genauso gelten – wenn auch politisch weniger folgenreich. Immerhin war in den 80er Jahren die Bereitschaft zum aufklärerischen Diskurs noch so weit verbreitet, dass besprochen werden konnte, wie Frauen ihre Söhne für die eigenen Bedürfnisse instrumentalisieren. Unter der feministischen Opferideologie setzte dann allerdings ein mächtiger Verdrängungsschub ein, der bis heute noch wirksam ist (Amendt 2008).

Die feministische Verleugnung setzte dabei an, dass Frauen keine Fehler gemacht und keine Verantwortung für den Nationalsozialismus und die Shoah haben können, weil sie von der Geschichte ausgeschlossen gewesen seien. Dass Geschichte aber auch in der Familie gemacht wird, durfte nicht thematisiert werden. Das gilt ebenso für die Töchter. Wer in der Gefolgschaft von Volker Pilgrim auf die familiäre Geschichtsmächtigkeit der Frauen bestand, die in die Gesellschaft und die Generationen hineinwirkte, der musste sich anhören: »Ach ja, wenn etwas schiefgeht, sind die Mütter an allem Schuld!« Dieses Bonmot hatte es in sich. Es unterstellte den Insistierenden etwa, dass Frauen allmächtig seien, was vielen Männern den Atem verschlug und sie das Feld räumen ließ. Die anderen schreckten zurück, weil sie als getreue Söhne gelernt hatten, dass man eine Frau nicht mit der Verantwortung für ihr Handeln konfrontieren darf. Das Bonmot wurde zum Signum dafür, dass Mütter der Kritik schutzlos ausgesetzt werden sollen. Das war riskant in einem Land, in dem nicht nur das Titanic-Prinzip »Frauen und Kinder zuerst« noch immer gilt, sondern wo schlummernde Reinheitsvorstellung von Weiblichkeit mit religiösen Elementen der Marienhaftigkeit und rassistischen Wertschätzungen aus der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus sich gegenseitig potenzieren.

3 Muttersöhne – das Werk missbräulicher Frauen

Wenn gesellschaftliche Veränderungen einsetzen, geht Gewohntes über Bord. Das war auch typisch für den Ausgangspunkt der 68er-Bewegung (Aly 2008), zumal damit verdrängte Fragen an beide Eltern, Vater wie Mutter, nach deren Verantwortung für die Verhältnisse während des Nationalsozialismus und im Hinblick auf die Shoah aufgeworfen wurden. Wie Männer auf die Beschämung reagierten, als ihnen vom Feminismus die Totalverantwortung für gesellschaftliche Konflikte aufgebürdet wurde, habe ich angedeutet (Mitscherlich 1985, 1987). Diese Bürde hat sich als Schuld niedergeschlagen. Vergleichbare Schuldgefühle wurden unter Frauen ausgelöst, als Pilgrim ihnen vorhielt, dass die Muttersöhne, von denen sie sich als »wohlmeinende und besserwisserische Patriarchen« drangsaliert fühlten, doch von ihnen selber hervorgebracht worden seien. Anders als Männer reagierten sie nicht so sehr mit Arroganz und Wegsehen, sondern mit der Vorhaltung, dass Männer sich nur ihrer eigenen Verantwortung entziehen wollten. Beide Geschlechter haben Schuldgefühle, aber sie wählten damals offenbar spezifische Wege des Umgangs damit.

Nachdem Pilgrim nun aber am ideologischen Pfeiler »weiblicher Ohnmacht« tiefe Kratzspuren hinterlassen hatte, zog er die Notbremse. Er wollte Müttern zwar Schuld, aber keine Verantwortung zuweisen. Deshalb wollte er die Vermutung zerstreuen, dass »die Frau als Mutter […] ›schuld‹ an der verhängnisvollen Entwicklung des Sohnes zur Gewaltneigung [sei].« Damit hat er die Frauen »kastriert«. Sie dürfen machen, was sie wollen, aber Verantwortung müssen sie keine übernehmen. Und so sprach er lieber von » unwissentlicher Verursachung, besser von der Wirkung, die die unterdrückte Frau in der Funktion der Mutter auf den Sohn hat, am besten von der Verstrickung, in die das Patriarchat die Mütter und Söhne zwingt, allein zu dem Zweck, um neue Gewaltspezialisten zu erhalten, die diese Gesellschaft für ihren Fortbestand braucht« (Pilgrim 1986, S. 260).

Pilgrims Logik endet in einem verantwortungsethischen Puzzle, einer geschlechterpolitischen Achterbahnfahrt. Denn es geht um den Kern der Beziehungen zwischen Männern und Frauen. Nach Pilgrim tragen entweder Männer Verantwortung oder anonyme gesellschaftliche Verhältnisse, nicht jedoch Frauen.

»Jeder Sohn wächst unter einer unterdrückten Mutter auf. Die Abschaffung der Gewalt des Sohnes wird gänzlich erst gelingen mit dem Ende der Unterdrückung der Frau« (Pilgrim 1986, S. 7). Die Freisprechung der Mutter folgt sodann auf dem Fuße: »Die Wirkung des universalen Verbrechens an den Frauen war riesenhaft. Die Frau verkam zu einem ängstlichen, sich selbst entfremdeten, hilflosen Männergebrauchsartikel. Die Wahrnehmung als Mensch sollte ihr nur noch in der sterilen Funktion(!) als Mutter möglich sein. Was Frauen schon früher hatten erleiden müssen – das Eingesperrtsein in körperlichen und burgmäuerliche Keuschheitsgürtel –, das drohte jetzt allen Frauen. Und also wurden die Riemen(!) zwischen Mutter und Sohn enger geschnallt. […] Der Verhängniskreislauf war geschlossen: Frauenunterdrückung, Sohnesbindung, Muttersohnausbildung, Lebenszerstörung« (Pilgrim 1986, S. 209). »Was Frauen auch tun, wie sie auch wirken, bei den Söhnen bildet sich das Muttersohn-Syndrom nur heraus, wenn sie zusammen mit unterdrückten Müttern aufwachsen. Seelische Größe, geistige Bedeutung, menschliche Stärke nützen den Frauen nichts, wenn sie im gesellschaftlichen Minus leben« (Pilgrim 1986, S. 316).

Indem Pilgrim über sich selber spricht, skizziert er doch das am weitesten verbreitete Selbstmissverständnis von Männern. Und zugleich wird damit die korrespondierende Erwartungshaltung von Frauen an Männer ausgedrückt, was sich zum jeweils vorherrschenden Arrangement der Geschlechter bündelt.

Offensichtlich ist das für Männer mit einem erheblichen Maß an Selbstverleugnung eigener Wünsche verbunden. Sie halten für eigene Interessen, was mehr oder weniger die Erwartungen von Frauen sind. Das reicht aber nicht, um eine erlebnisreiche Sexualität zu praktizieren, die die 68er-Bewegung anstrebte. Den Frauen ist das keineswegs entgangen. Sie haben dieser besonderen Variante des dienenden Mannes die Bezeichnung »Softi« verliehen. Einer, der glaubt, es Recht machen zu können, aber nicht merkt, dass Frauen doch auch das an Männern mögen, was sie gerade an ihnen kritisieren. Noch später hießen sie »Frauenversteher«. In der Genderliteratur zählen dazu Autoren wie Michael Kimmel, Klaus Theweleit, Michael Meuser, Harry Stoltenberg, Robert Cornell und andere. Diese Botmäßigkeit ohne erregende Dissonanz war nicht das, was Sexualität mit Leidenschaft erfüllen konnte. Der Softi wurde deshalb höhnisch verworfen. Aber hier zeigt sich, dass ein Wandel im männlichen Versorgen stattgefunden hatte. Es ging nicht mehr nur ums tägliche Brot, sondern mehr noch um Übernahme von Verantwortung für die sexuelle Zufriedenheit der Frau.

4 Die Angst der Frauen vor der Passivität der Männer

Heutzutage ist eines der großen Probleme vieler Männer, ihre eigenen Interessen und Wünsche zu bestimmen; eben jenseits der während der Kindheit bereits zugewiesenen Verantwortungen, die sie als Erwachsene in der Sorge für Frau und Kind weitgehend den einzigen Lebenssinn suchen lässt. Aus der Sicht der Männer können sich die Beziehungen zwischen den Geschlechtern nur verändern, wenn sie in Zukunft sich von der verinnerlichten Selbstinstrumentalisierung für Frauen losmachen können. Dies käme dem Ende einer weitgehend funktional bestimmten männlichen Identität gleich. Das geht aber nur gemeinsam mit Frauen in persönlichen Beziehungen. Der gemeinsame Aspekt, eben das, was Beziehungen in guten wie in schlechten Zeiten ausmacht, müsste wieder in den Mittelpunkt rücken. Das ist aber nur möglich, wenn die Gesellschaft sich aus den Fängen feministischer Ideologie befreit, wonach Männer Täter und Frauen Opfer sind. Diese Ideologie ist in Wirklichkeit die feministische Variante dessen, was früher traditionell als typisch weibliche Passivität und typisch männliche Aktivität ausgegeben wurde (Comas-Diaz 2007). Mit einem maßgeblichen Unterschied: Früher war die Passivität der Frauen nicht unerheblich von einer für Männer wie Frauen rigiden Arbeitsteilung erzwungen. Heute hingegen, in einer Zeit großer gesellschaftlicher Flexibilität und individuell gestaltbarer Lebensperspektiven, ist diese Passivität selbst zu verantworten. Und eigentümlicherweise propagieren die radikalsten Feminismusvarianten diese Passivität. Obwohl gänzlich im Gegensatz zur Frauenbewegung, die seit den späten 60er Jahren die Selbstermächtigung und das »self-empowerment« von Frauen ganz groß auf ihre Fahnen geschrieben hatte.

Selbstverständlich werden die Beziehungen von Männern und Frauen immer von Herrschaftsinteressen geprägt sein. Denn es gibt »engendered power« (Bethke 1990), eben geschlechtsspezifische Machtformen, über die Männer und Frauen verfügen. Denn Geschlechterbeziehungen sind generell machtverspielte Beziehungen, die nur in Ausnahmen als rein instrumentelle Gewaltzustände erscheinen. Diese weisen sowohl bei Männern als auch bei Frauen auf schwere Pathologien oder Charakterstörungen hin (Amendt 2009).

Am Beispiel von namhaften Muttersöhnen hat Volker Pilgrim zu zeigen versucht, wie weibliche Passivität sich auf die Ausgestaltung der Männlichkeit und somit auf die gesamte Gesellschaft auswirkt. Wer aber diese weibliche Macht verleugnet oder durch reales oder fantasiertes Leid staatliche Hilfsmaßnahmen im Sinne einer Flut Frauen fördernder und bevorzugender Gesetze auszulösen vermag, der ist weder schwach noch ohnmächtig. Er zeigt, welche Macht der Weiblichkeit zusätzlich zur erziehenden Macht über die Kinder in der Gesellschaft zufällt. Es trifft also durchaus zu: »Es mag ein großes Stück Aktivität notwendig sein, um ein passives Ziel durchzusetzen« (Freud 1990, S. 123). Und was im extremen Fall von aktiver Passivität als Terror des Leidens erscheint – eben als Sehnsucht danach, sich als Frau wie ein Opfer zu fühlen –, irritiert viele Männer. Es macht viele sprachlos, wenn nicht orientierungslos.

Zwar ist der Feminismus als soziale Bewegung versiegt und lebt nur noch im Dunstkreis bürokratischer Förderprogramme fort. Er bildet jedoch weiterhin die treibende Kraft, die Frauen als Opfer in einem Zustand politisch anerkannter Passivität halten möchte. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist der Ruf nach Veränderung der Männer eine hochambivalente Herausforderung. Sie sollen sich ändern, aber zugleich werden sie ganz traditionell wieder in die Pflicht genommen, die alte rettende Rolle zu spielen.

Anmerkungen

1 Zur Kritik an Margarete Mitscherlich, wonach das antisemitische Vorurteil männlich sei, vgl. Brainin/Ligeti/Teichert 1993.
2 Es mag sich hier bestätigen, was Mary Douglas (1981, S. 172) ausführte: »Im Hexenglauben kommt die Überzeugung zum Ausdruck, dass die Menschheit in zwei Hälften zerfällt: in die Guten und Reinen und die von Grund aus Niederträchtigen und Bösen, die eigentlich überhaupt nicht als Menschen zu betrachten sind.«
3 Eine hervorragende Darstellung dieser Tendenzen findet sich in der Günther 1997.
4 Hier geht es um introjizierte psychische Vorstellungen und nicht um die Teilhabe von Frauen am Arbeitsprozess als Zeichen von deren außerfamiliären Unabhängigkeit.
5 Da seit 1919 in Deutschland Frauen das allgemeine aktive Wahlrecht haben, mussten Männer die rollenspezifische Obsorge für die Frau im gesellschaftspolitischen Bereich nicht mehr fortsetzen. Hier hatten Frauen nicht mehr und nicht weniger wahlpolitischen Einfluss wie jeder Mann.
6 Das galt übrigens gerade auch für die befreite Sexualität.
7 Es sei hier lediglich darauf hingewiesen, dass es in der Frauenbewegung eine mächtige Strömung gab, die den Kampf um den weiblichen Opferstatus als Kampf um die weibliche Unschuld der »deutschen Frau« an Nationalsozialismus und Shoah betrieb.

Literatur

Aly, Götz (2008): Unser Kampf. Frankfurt (S. Fischer Verlag).
Amendt, Gerhard (1994): Wie Mütter ihre Söhne sehen. Frankfurt (Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag).
Amendt, Gerhard (1996): Die Wiederkehr der Geschichte in Liebesbriefen. In: Ulshöfer, Helmut (Hg.): Liebesbriefe an Adolf Hitler – Briefe in den Tod. Unveröffentlichte Dokumente aus der Reichskanzlei. 2. Aufl. Frankfurt (Verlag für Akademische Schriften).
Amendt, Gerhard (1999): Vatersehnsucht. Annäherung in elf Essays. Bremen: Institut für Geschlechter und Generationenforschung.
Amendt, Gerhard (2001): Mehr Respekt vor Kindern? Offener Brief an Christine Bergmann, Bundesministerin für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend. Leviathan 1, 3–10.
Amendt, Gerhard (2004): Über die These von der Verdammnis durch die Frauen. Das Parlament 46. URL: http://www.das-parlament.de/2004/46/Thema/005.htm.
Amendt, Gerhard (2006): Scheidungsväter. Frankfurt.
Amendt, Gerhard (2008a): I Did Not Divorce My Kids. Chicago (Campus Verlag/Chicago University Press).
Amendt, Gerhard (2008b): Geschichtsverleugnung, Väterfeindlichkeit und Antisemitismus im ideologischen Feminismus. Jüdisches Echo 57, 110–117.
Amendt, Gerhard (im Druck): Gewalt in Familien. Grundlagen und Interventionen.
Bernard, Jessie (1981): The Good-Provider Role. Its Rise and Fall. American Psychologist 36(1), 1–12.
Bethke, Jean Elshtain (1990): Power Trips & Other Journeys. Essays in History, Politics, and Social Theory. Madison, Wisconsin (University of Wisconsin Press). Ebenso (1983): Antigone’s Daughters! Reflections on Female Identity and the State. In: Diamond, Irene (Hg.): Families, Politics and Public Policy. New York, London, S. 304.
Brainin, Elisabeth; Ligeti, Vera; Teichert, Samy (1993): Vom Gedanken zur Tat. Zur Psychoanalyse des Antisemitismus. Frankfurt.
Comas-Diaz, Lillian (2007): Carolyn Sherif Award Address: SPIRITA: Reclaiming Womanist Sacredness into Feminism. Psychology of Women Quarterly 32(1), 13–21.
Douglas, Mary (1981): Ritual, Tabu und Körpersymbolik. Frankfurt.
Farrell, Warren (1995): Mythos Männermacht, Zwei tausend eins. Frankfurt.
Freud, Sigmund (1990): Neue Folge der Vorlesung zur Einführung in die Psychoanalyse. Bd. 15, S. 123.
Greenson, Ralph R. (1968): Dis-identifying from Mother – Its Special Importance for the Boy. International Journal of Psychoanalysis 49, 370–374. Ebenso 1982 in: Psychoanalytische Erkundungen. Stuttgart, S. 257–264.
Günther, Thomas (1997): Strukturwandel der Intimsphäre. Zur Modernisierung des Privaten. Bd. 13. Spuren der Weiblichkeit. Soziologische Beiträge. Hamburg (Lit Verlag).
Honig, Michael-Sebastian (1986): Verhäuslichte Gewalt. Eine Explorativstudie über Gewalthandeln in der Familie. Frankfurt.
Kavemann, Barbara; Lohstöter, Ingrid (1984): Väter als Täter. Hamburg.
Kimmel, Michael (1987) (Hg.): Changing Men. New Directions in Research on Men and Masculinity. A Sage Publication. New York.
Lessing, Doris (2001): The Guardian, 12.08.2001.
Mitscherlich, Margarete (1985): Die friedfertige Frau. Frankfurt.
Mitscherlich, Margarete (1987): Die Zukunft ist weiblich. Zürich.
Nathanson, Paul; Young, Katherine (2001): Spreading Misandry. The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture. Montreal, London.
Nathanson, Paul; Young, Katherine (2006): Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination against Men. Montreal, London.
Nitschke, Bernd (1980):Männerängste – Männerwünsche. München.
Pilgrim, Volker (1986): Muttersöhne. Düsseldorf.
Rave, Marion (1991): Befreiungsstrategien. Der Mann als Feindbild in der feministischen Literatur. Wissenschaftliche Reihe. Bd. 47. Bielefeld (Kleine Verlag).
Riding, Alan (2001): Julia Kristeva – Correcting Her Idea of Politically Correct. New York Times, 14.07.2001.
Schmauch, Ulrike (1995): »Was geschieht mit kleinen Jungen? In: Düring, Sonja; Hauch, Margret (Hg.): Heterosexuelle Verhältnisse. Stuttgart (Ferdinand Enke Verlag).
Stoller, Robert (1974): Symbiosis anxiety and the development of masculinity. Archives of General Psychiatry 30, 164–172.
Theweleit, Klaus (1977): Männerphantasien. Frankfurt (Roter Stern Verlag), S. 269.

Gerhard Amendt »Die Opferverliebtheit des Feminismus oder: Die Sehnsucht nach traditioneller Männlichkeit. Die Zukunft der Männer jenseits der Selbstinstrumentalisierung für Frauen«. In: Paul-Hermann Gruner, Eckhard Kuhla (Hg.): Befreiungsbewegung für Männer. Auf dem Weg zur Geschlechterdemokratie. Essays und Analysen. Gießen: Psychosozial-Verlag 2009, S. 41–55.

Die Macht der Frauen

2011-07-05T16:12:00.000+01:00

Berliner Zeitung Politik

Geschlechterverhältnisse

Die Macht der Frauen

Foto: Getty Images
Frauen dürfen heute alles zeigen, was sie haben. Sie wissen, dass sie die Männer damit erregen.

von Regine Sylvester

Berlin - Unter meinem Fenster rollen geschmückte Kremser mit singenden Männern. So ein Tag, so wunderschön wie heute. Halbnackte Rudel taumeln am Abend durch die Stadt, knallen leere Flaschen auf Bürgersteige, trinken immer weiter, kotzen sich das Gesöff aus dem Leib, schnarchen auf Bänken und Verkehrsinseln.

Feiertag, Vatertag, Herrentag.

Männer - nur einige, keineswegs alle, und eher jüngere als ältere - zeigen die alberne, die rüpelhafte Seite ihres Selbstverständnisses. Diese Gruppen können auch gefährlich werden. Am kleinen Müggelsee gab es dieses Jahr eine Keilerei. In Warnemünde starb ein Familienvater wegen nichts aus dem Nichts: Zwei konkurrierende Wandergruppen hatten sich gestritten, welche den schöneren Karren zog: einen Einkaufswagen oder einen Bollerwagen. Unter Männern kann eine seltsame Gewalt gären, die sie plötzlich aufeinander richten. Bei Kneipenschlägereien, Kriegen zwischen Fußballfans oder Rockern haben Frauen nichts zu suchen.

Die taz griff den Fall Strauss-Kahn auf und schrieb in dem Zusammenhang, dass sich das männliche sexuelle Privileg in unzähligen Formen wie Junggesellenabschieden, Vatertagen oder Bordellbesuchen ausdrückt. Das ist nicht korrekt. Was ist das männliche sexuelle Privileg bei Junggesellenabschieden oder Vatertagen? Dass Freundinnen heutzutage auch exzessive Junggesellinnenabschiede feiern, dass sich Frauen Callboys mieten und für sexuelle Dienste bezahlen, darf das unerwähnt bleiben? Außerdem werde ich misstrauisch, wenn sich etwas in "unzähligen Formen" ausdrücken soll. Unzählig ist ungenau und oft die reine Ablenkung. Man sollte damit rechnen, dass sehr Verschiedenes zusammengebraut wird, um ein Fass vollzumachen.

In diesem Fall geht es um ein verallgemeinertes, nachteiliges Männerbild.

***

In den letzten Monaten gerieten bekannte, manchmal auch mächtige Männer in den Verdacht, Frauen sexuell missbraucht zu haben. Israels Präsident Moshe Katzav wurde deshalb zu sieben Jahren Haft verurteilt. Der Meteorologe Jörg Kachelmann bekam nach vier Monaten Untersuchungshaft einen Freispruch aus Mangel an Beweisen, den Alice Schwarzer als "Freispruch dritter Klasse" interpretierte, die Staatsanwaltschaft und die Nebenklägerin legten Revision ein. Dem Franzosen Dominique Strauss-Kahn, zuvor Chef des Internationalen Währungsfonds, wurde in dieser Woche in New York die Anklage verlesen: Er soll ein Zimmermädchen zum oralen Sex gezwungen haben, ihm drohen in den USA 25 bis 74 Jahre Gefängnis.

In dem Zusammenhang rückten diverse Medien auch andere Männer in einen sexuellen Kontext, Männer, die wahrscheinlich, ein umtriebiges Leben führen, aber keine Straftat begangen haben: König Carl XVI. Gustaf von Schweden soll im Bordell gewesen sein. Er leugnet. Arnold Schwarzenegger betrog seine Frau und verheimlichte einen außerehelichen Sohn. Er bereut und will seine Frau zurück. Dem italienischen Regierungschef Silvio Berlusconi schmeichelt sein Image als Sexprotz. Er erzählte Journalisten den folgenden Witz: "Unter jungen Frauen wurde eine Umfrage gemacht. Die Frage lautete: Würdet ihr mit Berlusconi schlafen? 70 Prozent haben geantwortet: Warum nicht? Die anderen 30 Prozent haben gesagt: Nicht schon wieder!"

Nach diesen Fällen entstand, verständlich, eine aufgeregte Debatte über die sexuelle Macht der Männer. Wer viel gesehen und gelesen hat, empfängt die Signale einer fatalen Warnung: Männer können zu Monstern werden, besonders mächtige Männer sind besonders gefährlich für Frauen. Bei der Arbeit sind Frauen den sexuellen Übergriffen männlicher Kollegen ausgesetzt. Man muss die Frauen schützen.

Sie sind "wehrlos".

Das Wort fällt auch in einem Kommentar der Chefredakteurin der taz. Die Journalistin wird noch schärfer: Im Fall Strauss-Kahn kritisiert sie die Wortwahl der Öffentlichkeit: "Und die vergewaltigte Frau? Sie wird zum Zimmermädchen degradiert - zu einer Person also, die durch diese Bezeichnung zu einem Kind gemacht wird, das nicht im Vollbesitz ihrer Urteilskraft ist."

Diese Frau, die sich an einem unbekannten Ort aufhält und vor der Öffentlichkeit geschützt wird, arbeitete im Hotel als Zimmermädchen. Nun soll man "Zimmermädchen" nicht mehr sagen dürfen, weil man dabei an ein unmündiges Kind denkt und nicht an einen anständigen Beruf. Das Wort "Missbrauchsopfer" akzeptiert die Kollegin aber auch nicht: "Der Annahme, dass ich etwas missbrauchen kann, liegt immer zugrunde, dass ich etwas gebrauchen kann. Frauen werden dadurch einmal mehr zu Objekten die je nach Gusto benutzt werden dürfen."

Das ist nun wirklich Unsinn.

Die Chefredakteurin von Bunte schrieb im Mai ein Editorial über sexuelle Belästigung am Arbeitsplatz: "Männer sollten Sensibilität dafür entwickeln, dass Frauen an manchen Tagen Zweideutigkeiten lässig hinnehmen und am nächsten Tag schockiert sind."

Was mich bei solchen Texten aufregt, ist das reduzierte Frauenbild.

Im Zusammenhang mit der Sexualität der Männer wird die moderne Frau zum Weibchen erklärt - schwach, bedrängt, ängstlich abwehrend und einer mentalen Tagesform ausgeliefert, in der es "Zweideutigkeiten" mal lässig hinnimmt, mal einen Schock bekommt.

Alice Schwarzer schrieb vor einem Jahr in Emma: "Im Namen der Liebe neigen Frauen zur Selbstaufgabe, Gratisarbeit und Relativierung ihrer eigenen Existenz. Darauf baut die ganze männlich-weibliche Arbeitsteilung auf."

Wie passt dieser tägliche Opfergang zu den feministischen Bilanzen, in denen Frauen zu den Siegerinnen der Geschichte werden - stark, klug unabhängig, selbstbestimmt, mutig? Das alles kann durch die Sexualität der Männer untergraben werden? Mit dieser Angst leben meine Freundinnen nicht, ich auch nicht und meine Tochter schon gar nicht.

***

Ich komme aus dem Osten.

1993 schrieb ich eine Kolumne in der Wochenpost. Mir war im Westen eine diffuse Unsicherheit im Umgang zwischen Frauen und Männern aufgefallen: "Könnte es sein, dass der feministische Aufbruch auch Verluste brachte? Zerfall der Geschlechterrollen ohne erkennbare lebenslustige Alternative? Verunsicherte Männer trauen sich nicht, einer Frau in den Mantel zu helfen. Anerkennende Pfiffe auf der Straße gelten als Sexismus. Ich denke da anders: So lange einer pfeift, ist alles in Ordnung. Will wirklich keine angesprochen werden? Man kann doch Nein sagen. Ich frage mich, wie die Frauen im Westen überhaupt Männer kennenlernen."

Nach diesem Text, an dem ich auch heute kein Wort ändern möchte, erhielt ich viele Briefe, die empörten kamen alle aus dem Westen. Eine Frau fragte, ob ich auch das Taschenbillard von Männern begrüße, mit dem sie Passantinnen einschüchtern. Taschenbillard? Ach so.

Eine andere Leserin schrieb, ich sei verantwortlich für zukünftige Vergewaltigungen, weil ich sexuelle Belästigungen herunterspiele und die Männer zu Schlimmerem ermutige. Das waren unerwartete Kriegserklärungen. Danach habe ich wütend beschlossen, den Erfahrungen meines erwachsenen Frauenlebens zu vertrauen. Dazu gehörte eine einfache Feststellung: Frauen sind nicht die besseren Menschen.

***

Frauen haben andere Mittel und können große Verführerinnen sein. Die Macht, die sie damit über Männer gewinnen, ist Geschichte geworden, Kunst, Literatur, Theater. Die ägyptische Königin Kleopatra wollte ihr Land vor den römischen Eroberern retten. Sie verführte zuerst Julius Caesar und nach dessen Ermordung Marcus Antonius. Für längere Zeit konnte sie Ägyptens Machtstellung erhalten. Helenas Schönheit führte verblendete Männer in den Trojanischen Krieg. Mätressen verdrehten Kaisern und Königen den Kopf. Huren, Diven, Abenteurerinnen setzen verlockende Körper ein, um ihre Ziele zu erreichen. Junge reizvolle Mädchen suchen sich Sugar-Daddys, damit jemand die Kosten eines anspruchsvollen Lebenswandels übernimmt.

Die Kunst der Verführung, heute weitgehend heruntergekommen zur sexuellen Anmache, drängelt sich auf der Rampe der Aufmerksamkeit. Man kann gar nicht wegsehen, Hintern und Brüste auf der Titelseite, auf dem Plakat. Tussis mit gürtelbreiten Röcken steigen vor dir die S-Bahn-Treppe hoch. Frauen dürfen heute alles zeigen, was sie haben. Sie wissen, dass sie die Männer damit erregen, aber die dürfen sich nicht aufgefordert fühlen.

Wann ist der Mann ein Mann?

***

2004 erschien die erste sozialwissenschaftliche Studie über Gewalt gegen Männer. Sie wurde in der Berliner Zeitung ausgewertet: "Gewalt gegen Männer, sofern sie von Frauen ausgeht, gilt immer noch als Tabu. Männer wollen nicht wahrhaben, dass sie Opfer von Gewalt geworden sind. Sie bagatellisieren, halten sich aus Scham bedeckt. Jeder vierte Mann hat in seiner Partnerschaft mindestens einmal Gewalt erfahren - physische oder psychische." 2010 zeigte eine Studie der evangelischen Kirche, dass beide Geschlechter fast gleich häufig Täter sind, etwa 30 Prozent der Frauen und 34 Prozent der Männer üben Gewalt aus. Wenn Männer gewalttätig werden, sind sie es meist gegen Fremde. Gewalt von Frauen richtet sich gegen den eigenen Partner.

Diese Zahlen könnte ich vergessen, diese Erlebnisse nicht: Als mein Cousin seine Frau nach langer, unglücklicher Ehe verlassen wollte, versteckte sie eine Rasierklinge in seiner Nagelbürste. Ein anderer Mann aus meiner Familie heiratete eine Frau, die immer ausrastete, wenn er sich anerkennend über eine andere Frau äußerte, auch wenn es nur eine Schauspielerin im Fernsehen war. Einmal schlug sie ihm einen Telefonhörer auf den Kopf, bis Blut kam. Er wusste nicht, wie er sich hätte wehren können ohne zurückzuschlagen, und das konnte er nicht.

Ich habe noch öfter und aus anderen Gründen Männer bedauert. Es gab einen verzweifelten Freund in Stuttgart, den seine Frau betrogen hatte. Sie zog aus und ließ sich scheiden. Durch eine Gesetzesänderung von 1977 war das Scheidungsrecht vom Verschuldens- zum Zerrüttungsprinzip übergegangen. Danach konnte eine Frau ihren Mann betrügen, ihn verlassen und die Hälfte vom Zugewinn und Versorgungsanspruch erhalten. Dazu, wenn sie nicht arbeitete, drei Siebtel vom Nettoeinkommen des Verlassenen als Unterhalt. Die Frau aus Stuttgart war nun mit dem anderen Mann zusammen, zog aber nicht in eine gemeinsame Wohnung, nur damit der Ex-Ehemann, der Dumme, weiterzahlen musste.

Ein geschiedener Mann war verpflichtet, mit seinen Zahlungen seiner geschiedenen Frau die Aufrechterhaltung des ehelichen Standards zu ermöglichen. Wenn sie vorher zwei Mal im Jahr Skiurlaub gemacht hatte, sollte sie das auch weiter machen können.

Das ist inzwischen geändert, aber jahrelang bedeutete Heirat und Scheidung die weit und breit in der Bundesrepublik einzige sichere, lebenslange, luxuriöse Versorgung einer Frau, sofern sie sich vorher einen vermögenden Mann geangelt hatte. Der konnte nun frei sein und arm werden.

***

Ich stelle mir vor, ich wäre ein Mann, und zwar einer von den netten.

Ich bin bindungsfähig, geduldig und fürsorglich. Ich bin dieser Typ mit Schultern zum Anlehnen. Ich halte Versprechen, kann zuhören und finde Worte für meine Gefühle. Ich bin ein wilder und zärtlicher Liebhaber. Ich habe Freunde.

Wo kommt so ein Mann vor, wenn über Männer geschrieben wird? Mal ganz abgesehen von diesen Frauenbüchern, die sich vor Lachen nicht halten können, wenn sie männliche Details wie einen Schwanz aus der Nähe betrachtet haben wollen. Es gibt zu viele hämische, dumme, verbissene Bücher.

Und es gibt Sibylle Berg und ihren weisen Roman "Der Mann schläft". Eine Frau liebt einen Mann, weil der Mann diese Frau liebt. "Er war nicht auffallend schön oder reich, kein guter Redner oder charmant auf eine Art, die ihm Bewunderung einbrachte. Außer dass er mir das Gefühl gab, ich sei liebenswert, tat er sich in keinem Bereich mit Glanzleistungen hervor."

Der Mann und die Frau - beide haben keine Namen und sind schon älter - sind freundlich zueinander. Dann verschwindet der Mann. Man liest das Buch mit Demut. Sibylle Berg kann zaubern.

***

Natürlich - furchtbare Vorstellung - könnte mir ein körperlich überlegener Mann etwas Schlimmes antun. Noch jahrelang trug ich als junges Mädchen eine Trillerpfeife an einer Kette um den Hals. Sie sollte mir mehr Sicherheit geben, nachdem ich vor einem polizeilich gesuchten Vergewaltiger wegrennen konnte. Ich schaffte es gerade so ins Haus, der Mann versuchte, die Tür einzutreten. Beim Prozess sah ich ihn das erste Mal bei Licht, er war groß und stark. Vergewaltigung war lange Zeit meine entsetzlichste Vorstellung von einem Unglück, das mich treffen könnte.

Im letzten Maiheft des Spiegel gab die Schriftstellerin Catherine Millet ein Interview -"Sex ist ein Modus des Lebens" -, das kühn und kühl gegen den Strom schwimmt. Eine Vergewaltigung, sagt sie, könne den Körper einer Frau nicht unheilbar beschädigen, Sperma ließe sich abwaschen. Ein Mann könne sich des Körpers einer Frau bemächtigen, aber nicht ihrer Persönlichkeit, weil die sich nicht auf den Körper reduzieren lasse. Millet wagt einen verstörenden Vergleich: "Für mich ist eine Vergewalti-gung weniger schlimm, als ein Auge zu verlieren, voilà."

Könnte so sein, denke ich.

In einem Alter, das sich bestimmte Sätze fürs ganze Leben merkt, habe ich den Film "Spiel mir das Lied vom Tod" gesehen, den berühmten Italo-Western. Claudia Cardi-nale spielt eine junge schöne Witwe zwischen unberechenbaren Männern. Einer droht, sie zu vergewaltigen. Sie reagiert mit einer kurzen Ansprache: Sie könne sich nicht gegen ihn wehren. Aber danach würde sie in einen großen Eimer viel heißes Wasser gießen und sich waschen. Und alles wäre wie vorher.

Mir ist das nie passiert, aber ich hoffe, dass ich mit so einer Situation ähnlich stark umgehen könnte.

***

Wenn mir jemand uneingeladen auf die Pelle rückt, helfen Ironie und Gelächter.

1994 hatte mein damaliger Chefredakteur ein Interview mit Alexander Schalck-Golodkowski verabredet: Der Devisenbeschaffer der DDR war im Dezember 1989 in den Westen geflüchtet und sollte jetzt vor dem Untersuchungsausschuss des Deutschen Bundestags über seine frühere Tätigkeit aussagen.

Der Chef hatte mich zum Interview mitgenommen, weil ich mich in Ostangelegenheiten besser auskannte als er. Während des Gesprächs gab es eine Pause. Mein Chef ging zum Fenster und sah hinaus. Ich lehnte an der Wand. Ohne Scham und Überleitung fing Schalck-Golodkowski an, mich zu betatschen. Mein Chef blickte kurz herüber und wendete sich wieder dem Fenster zu. Ich schob die fremden Hände beiseite, sagte dem fleischigen Mann, er wäre nicht mein Typ und gab ihm einen kräftigen Schubs. Wir führten das Gespräch ohne Aufregung zu Ende.

Vielleicht hat sich der Chefredakteur nicht eingemischt, weil er Angst um das Interview hatte, das unserer Zeitung Aufmerksamkeit bringen sollte. Aber ich glaube, er wusste, dass ich mir nichts gefallen lassen werde. Ich war sogar dankbar, dass er mir das allein zutraute und nicht eingriff, was die Sache wichtiger und peinlicher gemacht hätte. Ich wollte kein Opfer sein.

Auf der Rückfahrt haben wir nur in Andeutungen über die Sache gesprochen und sie fortan beschwiegen.

***

"Beinschuss, Bauchschuss, Kopfschuss!", drohte ein früherer Bild-Chef seinen vermeintlich unfähigen Mitarbeitern an. Legendär war auch die Mitarbeitererniedrigungskreativität eines Stern-Chefredakteurs. "Finden Sie Ihre Texte eigentlich gut?", fragte er einen seiner Journalisten, der eben den Bericht von einer großen Reise abgegeben hatte. Der nickte vorsichtig. "Da sind Sie aber der Einzige", dröhnte der Chef.

Mir fällt noch eine Begegnung bei den Internationalen Filmfestspielen von Karlovy Vary ein, Jahre vor der Wende: Ich wurde dem tschechoslowakischen Filmminister vorgestellt, setzte mich zu ihm und anderen Gästen an den Tisch. Er sprach etwas Deutsch, und ich fragte, ob er gute Filme gesehen habe. Er antwortete: "Ich bin nicht hier, um Filme zu sehen. Ich bin hier, um zu saufen." Er sprach laut und genierte sich nicht.

Der Mächtige geht oft zu weit. Kränkt Leute. Benimmt sich schlecht. Lässt sich huldigen. Findet sich gut. Ist keinen Widerstand gewohnt.

Wissenschaftliche Studien ergaben - nach Focus -, dass sexuelle Gewalttäter meistens aus den unteren sozialen Schichten kommen, wenig Bildung haben und ein unstetes Leben führen. Sie kompensieren mit der Demütigung einer Frau ihre eigene Ohnmacht. Bei mächtigen Männern passiert das selten. Sie brauchen es nicht.

Nach Henry Kissinger ist Macht das stärkste Aphrodisiakum. Das gilt aber nur für Männer: Eine Regierungschefin oder die Aufsichtsratsvorsitzende eines Dax-Konzerns ist es nicht gewohnt, dass hysterische junge Männer ihr Telefonnummern zustecken oder stundenlang im Vorgarten der Familienvilla lauern, um sich der Dame anzubieten.

Mächtige Positionen, Prominenz, Reichtum locken Frauen an. Regisseure, Chefärzte, bekannte Schauspieler, Verlagsleiter, Bestsellerautoren sind eine begehrte Beute und erhalten Angebote. Es folgen sexuelle Attacken. Das spricht nicht für uns Frauen, es ist aber so wegen einer steinzeitlichen Veranlagung: Frauen suchen nach einem guten Ernährer. Und den finden sie dann, sofortiger Überlebensreflex, attraktiv.

Ich kannte eine hübsche junge Frau, die bei der Ostberliner Akademie der Künste arbeitete. Ein Bürojob, aber mit direktem Zugang zu Akademiemitgliedern. Über die vielversprechendsten Künstler führte sie eine Liste und näherte sich ihnen Mann für Mann mit einem einzigen Ziel: "Perlen und Pelze!" Keiner ist verlässlich darauf eingegangen. Zu Mauerzeiten hat sie sich in den Westen geheiratet.

Sehr speziell sind die Groupies. Junge Mädchen gehen zu einem Konzert und verlieren den Verstand. Sie geben ihre Arbeit oder Ausbildung auf, um Musikern zur Verfügung zu stehen. Sie werden abgewiesen und fahren trotzdem nicht nach Hause. Wenn sie gut aussehen und dranbleiben, gehören sie vielleicht irgendwann zum Tross. Die Allerschönsten oder Interessantesten werden zu Ikonen, die von dem Ruhm leben, einmal ein sexuelles Anhängsel gewesen zu sein.

Groupies leben zur selben Zeit auf unserem Planeten wie Feministinnen. Die Welt ist arbeitsteilig.

***

Busfahrer oder Agrartechniker kennen keinen weiblichen Massenansturm. Der kleine Mann von nebenan hat es leicht, treu zu bleiben, weil sich die Versuchung in Grenzen hält. Ähnliches galt für die ältere Frau, die während einer Berlinale im Kino neben mir saß. Vorne hatte ein Moderator die Zuschauerinnen scherzhaft gefragt, ob sie einen Mann wie George Clooney etwa gut fänden. Nach einem aufspringenden Händewald verließ er perplex und düpiert die Bühne. Ich hatte mich auch gemeldet. Die Frau neben mir, leichter Damenbart, stieß mich an und sagte: "Clooney finden Sie gut? Bei mir hätte der keine Chance."

Für beide Geschlechter gilt: Es ist leicht, Angebote abzulehnen, die man nicht erhalten hat. Nicht so einfach ist es dagegen, viele Angebote immer abzulehnen.

Ich wage Verallgemeinerungen, aber sie sind gespeist aus Erfahrung: Männer sind schlicht gestrickte, gutmütige Vorwärtsstrategen. Sie können mühelos mit einer Frau ins Bett gehen, ohne sich verlieben zu wollen. Sie sind Streuner, kehren aber in die bekannte Hütte zurück. Intelligente Männer betrügen großartige Frauen mit einer passablen Schnitte: Das läuft bei ihnen auf einem anderen Kanal.

Eine Frau, die Männer eine Weile mit grundsätzlicher Sympathie betrachtet hat, erwartet nichts Unmögliches und wird nicht so leicht enttäuscht werden.

Man könnte sich arrangieren.

Was denn sonst?

Berliner Zeitung, 11.06.2011

The sorrowful rise of neuter man

2011-04-21T16:30:00.002+01:00

Gelding, By Lily
The sorrowful rise of neuter man. by Fred Reed

Ever wonder why masculine men are dying out--the old strong, silent type who rolled cheroots one-handed while roping dogies with the other--and being replaced by delicate androgynous Ken-dolls who look like Tinkerbell with a flat chest? Or why women look increasingly . . . not masculine so much as sexless?
Tell you what I think.
(I'll bet that surprises you.)
Used to be, men and women were different, and they knew it. They weren't in competition. So a guy could be Marlboro Man, or sort of anyhow, and grunt, and stand tall in the saddle, and say, "Hoo-ahhhh!" and ride Harleys. And if anybody messed with his kids or women, he'd take a tire iron to'em, or a thirty-thirty, depending--or at least imagine that he might. He had sense enough, anyway, to know that it was a good idea.
Back then, a woman could like a big hairy-chested hunk, because she wasn't competing with him. In fact, the hairier and chesteder he was, the better, because she was vying with her girlfriends to see who could get the manlier man. And a lot of women liked the idea of 240 pounds of muscle in a Stetson that meant to take care of them.
She meanwhile could afford to be cute, feminine, and curved, and dress like a woman, and maybe wield a gorgeous smile that she used to play him like a banjo--which he probably knew, and figured that was OK too, because that's how things worked, and anyway guys are guys. She didn't have to out-hairy him. She wasn't trying to be a guy.
East was east, and west was west, and the twain would meet at the drop of a hat.

Then everything changed. Women decided they wanted to compete with men. OK. I can understand it. If I were a woman with an IQ of 160, I'd probably want to be a biochemist instead of child-herd and doily-polisher. The idea seemed reasonable to most women, and to most men. A kajillion gals poured into the workplace.
Thing was--and nobody had really thought this out--they didn't expect to compete on their merits as individuals, get as far as they got, and figure that was the hand God dealt them. They wanted to duke it out head-to-head, self-consciously and avowedly, as a class, with men. It wasn't Sally wrestling with the law boards. It was Us agin Them.
Which was a Whole Nuther Thing. No society or species had ever tried it.
Problems arose. Fact is, men are hard to compete with. Physically, they are taller, heavier, much stronger, more durable and more enduring. Except for nymphet gymnastics, there may be no sport in which women hold the record. Intellectually men have a large advantage mathematically and a slight one verbally at the high end, that becomes rapidly greater as one moves to the right of the mean; This is the Glass Ceiling. Men are more aggressive, exploratory, adventurous, and versatile. Sorry, but there it is.
Women moved up some, and some moved up a lot, but they didn't catch up numerically with men. It was because they couldn't, and that's a pretty good reason. And when you got down to it, women just didn't care enough. They had other things on their minds, like families and rugrats.
They didn't quite understand this. Nobody did. All women wanted, they said early on, was to be judged by the same standards as men. It was a bad idea. If I judge Cup Cake as a woman, I note that she is sleek, smart, funny, graceful, sweet as sorghum on a Moon Pie, and dances like a dream raised in Arkansas. I'm smitten.
If I judge her as I judge men, she's an emotionally unstable dwarf. How much respect am I supposed to have for a 5'3" guy who bench presses a twenty-ounce Pepsi?
Antagonism inevitably ensued. Men said that the ladies didn't want to be women, and couldn't be men. Why, they asked each other, did a first-rate woman want to be a second-rate man? The women said men were bigoted. Men said they were just observant. Women, who had always regarded men as commitment objects and pre-med objects, became enraged that men regarded them as sex objects. Men were puzzled. They didn't know what else to regard as sex objects.
I was confused myself. I remember a woman screaming at me, "Women don't want to be objects!" Trying to be conciliatory, I said, "OK, you can be subjects." That didn't suit her either.
They don't know what they want. And that's the problem.
They got angry and developed chips on their shoulder pads. War ensued, in which women raged and men didn't know what the hell was going on. When natural ability failed, women discovered, politics would serve. And so we got affirmative action, which means, "pretending."
Depending on the venue, the women needed very little or lots of pretending. The military was worst. It pretended either that women could climb obstacles, or that wars didn't involve obstacles. Soon soldiers discovered that most women couldn't throw a grenade beyond its bursting radius. This will make you unpopular on battlefields. Besides, a woman throwing a grenade looked like a sea lion waving its flipper. So the Army built a little wall for them to drop grenades over.
It was ridiculous. It is ridiculous. Affirmative action always is. Nobody is fooled. Still, it spread like peanut butter on a hot day. For those women who didn't like men anyway, it was sweet revenge. Except--it wasn't quite. The men knew, and the women knew they knew. On the other hand, the checks cashed.
Intuitively women knew they had to push for unisex. To compete with men, women had to act like men, who are competitive, and get men to behave like women, who aren't. They bought ugly sexless suits, did boring things with their hair, and practiced being disagreeable, often succeeding wildly. Meanwhile the media, fronting for them, went in for pretty male models who waxed their chests and weren't threatening. The compassionate man emerged like a grub from a log.
The women won. Marlboro Man, or anybody too clearly of one sex or the other, is out of style. Both the New-Age woman, and her docile man-surrogate, would be intimidated, and ol' Marlboro would have trouble knowing which was the girl. God it's boring.

Es gibt wenig Möglichkeiten eine Sache richtig zu machen, aber viele Möglichkeiten, eine Sache falsch zu machen. Wie der Autor darlegt: beurteilt man eine Frau wie einen Mann, dann ist Sie ein emotional instabiler, schwächlicher Zwerg. Es gibt auf dieser Welt keine Kultur, bei der die Frauen groß, kräftig und behaart, die Männer jedoch kleiner, zarter und häuslicher sind. - Warum wohl? - WEIL ES NICHT FUNKTIONIERT!
Das grandiose Scheitern des Sozialismus hält die Menschen nicht davon ab, immer und immer wieder, dieser Chimäre nachzulaufen, mit den bekannten Folgen.
Wenn sich der männliche und der weibliche Phänotyp so unterscheiden, wie sie es denn tun, so gibt es dafür Gründe. Wir sind die Kinder der Überlebenden, die Kinder derer, die den evolutionären Prozess überlebt haben. Die Merkmale, welche wir tragen, sind tausendfach getestet und geprüft. Kann es sein, dass es uns nicht gegeben ist, den neuen Menschen zu züchten, sondern dass nur das Leben selbst, die Kreaturen formt, welche dann überleben.
Die Frau der Zukunft wird in jedem Falle kleiner, dicker und unintellektueller sein.
Man muss nur nachprüfen, welcher Typ Frau drei und mehr Kinder bekommt.
Survival of the fittest heißt, überleben dessen, der überlebt und Nachkommen hat, die auch überleben.

THE TREATISE OF LOVE,

2010-11-15T17:36:00.001+01:00

From the author: This is a manual for young people who are puzzled and exhausted by the oddity of love. The instinctive basics of human conjugal behavior as a biological species are examined. There is a brief review of biological presuppositions at the beginning, followed by scrutinizing the instinctive criteria for choice of a marriage partner for people, and practical advice. And in conclusion there is an ethological review of instinctive behavioral motivations of people. A greatly abbreviated version of the given material was published in " Chemistry and life - XXI century" N7 of 1997 magazine in the article "About the captain Rzhevsky and cornet Obolensky without any white lies". If you'd like to read this Treatise in Russian or Spanish please click on the links below. Russian original En Espanol In Bulgarian Write to author Download ZIP FAQ All articles of the author

Anatoly Protopopov

THE TREATISE OF LOVE,
as it is recognized by awful bore

second edition

Authorized translation from Russian by Mikhail Linetsky
with helpful remarks by Alexander Kositsky, Michael Fournier, Yekaterina Bogdanova and others

Everything real - is rational;
Everything rational - is real.
(H. Hegel)

Genuine knowledge - is a
knowledge of the reasons.

(G. Galileo)

Table of contents
To the english reader
A few words about human ethology
About the subject
Why, properly speaking, should we breed?
Budding and syngenesis.
About hermaphrodites and reproduction methods evolution.
About different genders and sexual selection.
About variety and risk
About conjugal strategy
About our primeval "ego"
About hierarchy in a herd
About primativeness and culture
About princes and princesses
About the struggle of two "egos"
About alcohol
About bastard children
About the husbands and the lovers
So, of whom are there more?
Origin of family, prostitution, and promiscuity
More about choice
What the men having no luck should do
Practical conclusions for a lonely women
About valor and humiliation
Ethological continuation
About optical illusions and observational selection
About specifics of behavior
About egocentrism
About primeval hierarchy in our society
About aggressiveness and crime
About religion, art, and advertising
Other popular publications

Acknowledgements

I consider it my duty to express profound acknowledgement to all participants of the Discussion Club as well as to the readers who shared their comments in private correspondence. Your opinions, remarks, comments, and questions were by far not the least of the things laid down in the foundation for the enhancements of the second edition. A special thanks to Leonid Ivanov for his help.
I'd like to express special gratitude to Irina Patseva, without whose moral support, this Treatise could have never been issued.

To the English reader

The original essay was written in Russian and at first was intended only for the Russian audience. Russian folklore (fairy tales, jokes, anecdotes, humor and etc.) is widely used in the manuscript. In this translation whenever possible we tried to explain such places or alter them to make it clearer for the English readers. We thank you for any comments and remarks regarding translation quality. So, let's begin...

A few words about human ethology
Foreword written to the publication of this book in Bulgaria in 2002

Traditional psychology as well as other sciences of human beings were always interested in the issue of proportion of biological and non-biological bases in man's behavior. At different times either biological or non-biological influence was considered as predominantly meaningful. In the 19th and at beginning of the 20th centuries there was commonly accepted opinion of biological component prevalence. As one of the most notorious (though, not the only) representative of these views one might call Sigmund Fried. However, constantly speaking actually about instincts ("libido" and "mortido") and their influence on a man even he did not take an attempt to research its physical nature and genesis. That's why there is no surprise that his conclusions and findings did not look really convincing and were constantly criticized. In addition, Eugenics based on a similar paradigm seriously discredited itself by the ties with despotic regimes using it for ideological support to conduct policy of violence and persecution. That's why beginning with the 1920s of the 20th century a pendulum swung into the opposite direction and as usual in such cases, overflew the golden middle. Up to the most recent time the concept of mighty domination of socially based component in human behavior was totally prevailing. Sometimes this concept is called a concept of "Tabula Rasa", i.e. "Blank List". It was suggested within the scope of this concept that at birth a man is a blank list where society and environment write one or the other rules of behavior and thus whatever is written will make a kind of human being. However, as time passed the inability to explain clearly and without strained interpretation the whole range of human behavioral reactions within the scope of this concept became more and more evident. At the same time, a lot of these seemingly unexplainable behavioral reactions of a human being find more or less natural explanation within the scope of hypothesis of presence of a powerful layer of inborn behavioral schemes in a human being! That's why at the very end of the 20th century the extremes in interpretation of human behavior were started to be removed, and a view of a human being as a creature in no small degree biological, born with a far from insignificant luggage of built-in behavioral schemes have begun to find wider and wider support. Nearly the most determinant contribution to this view was made by a science called ETHOLOGY and other disciplines branched from it. Ethology studies instinctive bases of behavior of living creatures by comparing the behavior of various species between themselves. A human being for ethologist is just another mammal having a fair conceit of oneself, but in reality only one of a species sharing equal rights with all other biological species.
Comparing behaviors of the specimens belonging to the various zoological species from the most primitive to the most complex scientists discover striking similarities and conformity which are evidence of existence common behavioral principles involving all members of zoological domain including humans. Such research methods are very productive and widespread in other sciences. For example, astronomers know much more about Sun's internal structure then geologists about Earth's inner structure. This happens because there are a lot of stars and all of them are way different. There is a lot to uncover by comparing them. But the Earth is unique and there is nothing to compare it. The same applies to studying a man. Restricting ourselves to study the one alone we take a risk to remain greatly limited in our comprehension of it.
However, studying ethology of humans is not simple. Besides objective difficulties deriving from powerful effect of brain masking and modifying many instinctive exhibits, researchers regularly get in conflict with public unacceptance of ethological method applied to the humans. Many people deem unacceptable and feel even insulted by the very fact of comparing human behavior with an animal. And this has its own ethological explanation! It consists of the effect of the instinct of ethological isolation of the species. The detailed examination of it is out of the scope of the book. The essence of this instinct can be expressed by motto "love your own kind but hate a different one". "Different ones" in our case are presented by apes and monkeys. Hostile attitude to them spreads as well on the thesis of relationship between our behavior and theirs. Despite up to this day non-stopping (due to the same hostility) attempts to overthrow Darwin theory, it is firmly and irrevocably accepted by the scientific community, and majority of the educated people completely agrees with their descent from the apes, however even a thought that one or another feeling is a call of instinct as before causes strong protests among many people, mostly getting no rational explanation. Meanwhile, the root of this hostility lies in subconscious unacceptance of our relationship with the apes. Please remember about that, my dear readers.
What else can an ethologist tell about a human being? A lot! He can tell about aggressiveness and about the nature of authority, about innate morality and the forces behind nationalism, and even about the oddity of love! And exactly the oddity of love we are going to discuss in this book.

About the subject

Question to an Armenian radio station:
How to avoid pregnancy?
Answer: Drink mineral water.
Question: When - before or after?
Answer: Instead of.
(old anecdote)

In my point of view all attempts of the society to enlighten the young and older people in sexual matters are extremely lop-sided. While the issues of the techniques of sexual intercourse, pregnancy prevention and the ways to avoid contracting sexually transmitted diseases are widely presented and available, the choice of partner is discussed casually, lacking the system, contradictory, and unconvincingly by the reason of subjective and purely speculative argumentation. Oh yes, discussing sexual techniques is damn pleasant but the majority of the tragedies on sexual ground happens not because the sex itself is not done RIGHT but because it is done with not the right partners. In fact, all the advice regarding choosing the partner are boiled down to hard way learning and staying away which in no way can guarantee that everything will be OK. From another point of view, while trying out the advice one might lose not one but many really suitable matches.
During the whole written history of human civilization, it was widely accepted to trust a feeling of love in choice of a partner. Moreover, in the last decades love as a conjuration became opposite to one minute passion and was counted as a guarantee of unerring choice. However, it hasn't been precisely proven so far that this trust is fully justified. The difference between big love and momentary chemistry is purely quantitative but not qualitative. Instead, the sensations arising from it are explained and colorfully described, but the basic logic of this event is left behind the scenes or is simply negated as something supernatural. There is no need to look for a mystery where one does not exist. In reality, all these irrational things of love are rational, logical, and wise in their own way. In order to see this rationality it is necessary to move from civilized society's coordinate system to one of primeval-herd. Below, I will try to show how to do it and prove the correctness of such transition. To be certain we shall speak about instinctive bases of conjugal behavior of human beings in terms of biological species. The process of sexual intercourse will not be examined. We are also not interested in FEELING itself, i.e. that sensations experienced by the lovers and physiological mechanisms which cause it.
I am sure that knowledge of this logic will not impoverish the perception of love, as one of the most beautiful feelings, like knowledge of flower structure does not hinder a botanist to be delighted with its beauty and like knowledge of harmony rules and musical instrument design does not hinder a musician to enjoy a masterpiece performance.
The instinctive bases of human being's conjugal behavior are studied by science called ETHOLOGY. However, there are practically no popular publications on this topic and I hope that this article will fill a gap in the lack of them in some way.

Why, properly speaking, is reproduction needed?

Who has come in this world - his grief is clear
He must come back to nonexistence.
(Omar Khaiam)

During the lifetime of any being its genetic material is gradually distorted, faults accumulate in it and as a result its viability diminishes and finally it dies. We will not examine the other theories of obsolescence as this is out of scope of this article. The phenomenon of reproduction of all known beings lies in the fact that the descendants obtain genes practically free of these accrued faults. Otherwise children would have inherited not only the body features but also age. So the rising generation would have faded out very quickly and probably it would have never started in the first place.

Briefly speaking:

Reproduction is the method of genetic material refinement from faults, i.e. the kind of way to live eternally.

Budding and sexual reproduction.

The best way of multiplication is division.
(from the talk of two amoebas).

Vegetative reproduction is just a simple division of cells, however this process only seems to be simple, but it is very complicated in fact. Genetic material is not simply duplicated but after the cells bifurcate chromosomes intricately exchange their different parts and as a result of this the defective genes are excluded from being forwarded to the next generations. Only after this, does a cell split into two. Nevertheless there is a very high probability that all genes in a chromosome's spirals happen to be damaged and it will be impossible to get non-damaged one.
As the way to eliminate or to significantly decrease this probability, nature came to the sexual process. Its main difference from vegetative is that two non-identical genetic sets from two different specimens with absent correspondingly damaged genes participate in exchange. Besides, it becomes possible to build the features and characteristics from different parents and this simplifies adaptation to ever-changing environmental conditions.
The advantages of sexual process are costly. Vegetative process is more simple and reliable, that's why many beings still practice reproduction in both ways. The sexual process is usually resorted with deterioration of living conditions, when the faults in genes become more often and the necessity to change something in life becomes more obvious. When everything is fine, simple division is the way to go.

Briefly speaking:

Despite the complexity in implementation, sexual reproduction provides higher quality refinement of genetic material from generation to generation.

It also creates higher diversion of properties, characteristics, and features in specimens and that gives significant advantages for adaptation to ever-changing environmental conditions.

About hermaphrodites and evolution of reproduction methods.

Do not multiply the fundamentals needlessly. (W. Occam)

There must participate two different specimens in the sexual process but it follows from nowhere that they must be of two DIFFERENT genders. Hermaphrodites use sexual reproduction but of one sex! Each hermaphrodite individual has complete set of genitals and can equally play a role of a male or female and it is not unusual for the specimen to do it simultaneously. For example, some species of snails can copulate in large groups jointed in long ribbons or rings.
Hermaphroditism is not so bad. It is more reliable and simple than different genders. In fact, if we were normally hermaphrodites, our conjugal life would have become easier but probably not poorer. Judge for yourself, in spite of double the chance to find life's companion we would have had simplified acquaintance and courting procedures at least. Then why don't unisexual creatures dominate on Earth? From this point, the most interesting things begin!
Life on Earth was conceived approximately 3 - 3.5 billion years ago and reproduced vegetatively at first. The moment of "invention" of sexual reproduction is not certain, but the first cellular organisms, which appeared about 800 million years ago, used sexual reproduction, at least occasionally. Most of those organisms like snails, worms, etc., that survived to our days, were mostly hermaphrodites, i.e. obviously unisexual beings appeared much earlier. Their predominance ended in the Silurian period (approximately 400 million years ago). Along with them, the predominance of unisexual propagation came to an end. Since that time, dioecious reproduction is a rule because it has important advantages. What advantages?
One of them is very obvious. Some hermaphrodites (but not all) are able to copulate with themselves, and unlike masturbators can have posterity. Of course such an extreme incest contradicts the sense of dioecious propagation and should be prevented somehow because this kind of "sexual" reproduction is barely different from vegetative. However, real hermaphrodites practice self-copulation very seldom and generally for a very valid reason - absence of another being within its reach. Otherwise, some safety mechanisms eliminating self-fertilization are triggered. Initially, sex specialization is one of such mechanisms but this is not enough to squeeze out hermaphrodites.

About different genders and sexual selection.

- Do you love me?
- Yes!
- Ah! But where are the bees?
(From the talk of two flowers)

Since old fellow Darwin, it is usual to believe (partially against his opinion) that natural selection is based on casual, spontaneous death of creatures which are not adapted enough to living conditions. Such selection together with variability was called evolutionary force. Meanwhile, this way of selection is very inefficient. The man himself acts with far greater efficiency selecting new breeds of animals and plants. He achieves results in a few generations rather than in hundreds of thousands of years. The essence of such selection is to choose deliberately the parents of initial species, who carry the desired properties and disallow a reproduction of another beings without such properties. Actually there is no need to kill these outsiders. What humanism! Besides, a chance still remains to correct "judicial mistake" if this is going to occur.
Obviously, the usage of the same selection methods by nature itself can accelerate the pace of evolution and thus, improve the ability of the species to adapt to ever-changing environmental conditions. However, how can nature implement this in reality? It needs to have some kind of Judge, making the decisions of who deserves and who does not. The easiest way is to apply a hypothesis of God's existence, but this is a way to avert the answer. It is acceptable that this Judge is not alone. The most important is that they all should judge more or less by the same laws.
And there are a lot of judges and they are named "female". They pass a verdict which males will last in descendants and which will not. That's why such selection is called sexual. It is interesting that Darwin himself paid great attention to sexual selection but this did not find the proper response with the other scientists.
Can there be a sexual selection among hermaphrodites? Let us imagine a unisexual being which should have been rejected as sire. It is refused time after time but finally after some refusals, it finds the same loser and ... they will agree someway. In the world of different sexes, one outcast male can not help another one in bringing offspring but there are no outcast females in the animal world because one male can mate with many females. And usually it is still far from the limit of its fertilizing productivity. Taking into account that the number of males in population usually equals the number of females, hence male fertilizing potentials are in extreme abundance and it means that females always have more or less wide choices of a mating partner. This choice might be disguised or hidden but nonetheless it always exists.
Exclusion of females for the same purpose of selection from the reproduction process is too risky because their unborn cubs cannot be born by another female. A female gives birth by herself to as many offspring as she can and simply physically cannot substitute another female. A male is a different matter! All non-conceived cubs by one particular male will be conceived by another one with pleasure (and who would refuse...?)
That's exactly how it happens in reality. The 1/6 seal males fertilize 5/6 of females, the others have to pretend that they do not need this at all... Even more extreme disproportions are known among sea lions where 4% of males mate with 88% of females! The same picture is typical for all gregarious animals. Amongst the species which live in pairs, especially birds, it is customary to fertilize before a pair (family) is formed and sometimes after but with another male, often in sight of a "lawful husband". In other words, the pair is formed for doing household chores but fertilization is often done under gregarious laws. Besides, males are born in slightly higher numbers than females (and the more males are born the worse the living conditions for the species are). All this leaves room for choice even among strictly paired animals.
Plants, even diclinous ones, are not able to make such selection (see epigraph), that's why complete heterothallism in the floral world did not become dominant and probably remains as one of the ways preventing self-fertilization.
Thus, gender differentiation assumes some explicit or implicit form of copulative polygyny, but the

fundamental principle of dioecious propagation is the principle of female's irreplaceability.

For accelerating selection and making it purposeful, some part of possibly potent males by all means will be excluded from reproduction process, with the growing share of the others.
From the principle of female's irreplaceability follows the fundamental differences between males and females behavior. As females are of a far greater value for the population and males are born in significantly higher numbers than needed to sustain specimen reproduction, thus, their personal value for the species is far lower. This circumstance is fixed in appropriate instincts which require from female to be more careful, avoid risk, take care of themselves in the first place and demand caring from surrounding people. For example, it is well in line with this instinct that women are more egocentric and trust more intuition and feelings than logic. Intuition and feelings are based on practical experience, including the experience of a whole species, so they are proved with practice and considered to be something more reliable. We will return to this subject below any number of times but once and look it through with greater details at the end.

Briefly speaking:

Dioecious propagation provides much faster pace of natural evolution by setting up effective sexual selection under which some part of males purposefully rejected.

About variety and risk

Without any born to creep - the others cannot fly. (it is ascribed to Maxim Gorky)

If all the specimens are look-alikes like nuts on a conveyer belt, then all the hassle about choice does not make any sense. In order for the selection to make any sense, there has to be a due variety of specimens. Of course, after hundreds and thousands generations it is possible to form some optimum features and properties, which will provide the highest viability of each specimen and thus, the highest viability of a whole species but ...
As a matter of fact, the conditions which affect the very existence of species are anything but permanent, and a direction of future changes is totally unpredictable by nature, despite its so-called wisdom. That is why specimens are needed with non-optimized, needless, and perhaps, harmful features and properties for the current conditions. If the conditions change some of these features and properties might happen to be extremely useful. Giving birth to such creatures, nature definitely takes a risk - they are currently less viable, but it is necessary to take a risk since "no risk - no champagne". Nature does not know any other way "to predict the future" except hit and miss despite of whatever it is ascribed.
Is there any other way to minimize undesired consequences of such risk? How to make the consequences of such chaotic experiments (mostly misses) less threatening for the viability of the whole species?
Elementary! If possible, females should not deviate from the optimum but instead, males should become the objects of experiments, because unsuitable males can be easily excluded from the reproductive process without a danger of decreasing the number of children in a whole population. On the other hand, just a few outstanding males can father all the children in a population.
It was noticed long ago that the ratio of newborn males to newborn females strongly depends on living conditions of the species. Under unfavorable conditions a share of newborn males increases, thus, variety increases, selection speeds up and toughens and this in turn leads to the faster adaptation to the new conditions. Under favorable conditions a share of newborn females increases and that creates possibilities for fast proliferation of species.

Briefly speaking:

To increase the effectiveness of sexual selection, males, as objects of choice, must own a widespread variety of different features, properties, and qualities up to the explicit non-optimum of certain specimens, in order to cover the widest possible spectrum of future probable species demands.

This diversity can only be chaotically random due to the impossibility for natural evolution to predict the future thoughtfully.

On the other hand, females do not need to be extremely diverse because it is too risky, and carrying out the advantages of such diversion will fail due to the small numbers of descendants from each one.

About conjugal strategy

**A lecture in a zoological college:**
Lecturer:	A good sire-bull should make up to twelve copulations a day.
A woman's voice from the first row:	What? How many did you say?
Lecturer:	Up to twelve.
A woman's voice from the first row:	Would you please repeat it louder for the people in the last row!
A man's voice from the last row:	Excuse me, is it meant to be with one cow or with twelve?
Lecturer:	With twelve, of course!
A man's voice from the last row:	Would you please repeat it louder for the people in the first row!
	(an old student anecdote)

Why cannot women and men find each other even if they are so eager for each other's companionship? That is so because they make a search based on different criteria as they pursue the different goals in their eagerness. Moreover, this eagerness for each other is not unconditionally friendly and resembles people's behavior on a market. Seller and buyer are eager to find each other and strike a deal as well, but each of them tries his or her best to get the maximum profit from the deal, frequently without any consideration of another party's possible losses. Nature, alas, is devoid of sentiments...
As it has been mentioned above, the principle of gender separation assumes that the small group of males fertilizes the disproportionately large share of females forcing the major part of male population to pose themselves as hopeless bachelors. Such strategy allows to quickly adopt new and useful features and properties in descendants and saves females from reproduction of useless genes.
To achieve this, males and females should have significantly different behavior while searching for their nuptial partners.
Every male should be eager to change females as often as possible, considering himself as the carrier of uniquely useful genes. Let's imagine that one man somehow has a gene with immunity, let's say, to AIDS. It is extremely necessary to spread this gene among the population! But he is, such a scoundrel, faithful to one woman only. How many children can be born by one female? OK, 10, maximum 20 and according to the genetic rules only half of them will inherit this gene. This is a crime in face of the species! However, if one tried to behave like a sultan, he can father possibly 1000 or even up to 2000 children. This is something ... Therefore public opinion treats male infidelity pretty repressively as it is not without a reason. This is an instinctive program and so to say, it is very sane from the biological point of view. Male should not confine his sexual expansion. There are females for this.
Thus, the instinctive goal of male conjugal behavior is

More female's bodies, pretty and different.

And what if a female has such a unique gene? What should her behavior be in order not to sink this gene into oblivion, but rather transfer it to the future generations? In general, it is also possible to increase the number of children but ... Will the frequent changing of the males help a woman to increase the number of children? Absolutely not, but this could significantly lower the quality of children! That's why public opinion treats women's infidelity with much louder condemnation. A woman unscrupulous in her sexual partners does not take care of her future children! If a man transferring his genes fathered a child with an unsuitable woman, he did not lose anything. He can repeat the same literally the very next day with a better woman, it found. But a woman conceived from an unsuitable man cannot correct her fault so soon (nature does not know abortion). Moreover, the number of such trials is very limited in general. To fix her genes in descendants more reliably, a woman should strengthen the severity of selection for the candidates, in order not to mix her own, supposedly unique genes with any other male genes deemed unfit. However, she should be attractive to all men in order to have a possibility to choose from. The more men are attracted to her the wider the choice that she has. The ideal case is to make all men fall in love with her, but admit only one, or maybe, none at all. The copulation itself is an almost incidental side effect of the seduction process.
So, the instinctive goal of female conjugal behavior is

more man's hearts, nice and different.

After a man's heart is captured, a woman can lose any active interest in him, just continue keeping him for her collection, meanwhile seducing the others.
It is necessary to make a point that only the base of the differences of conjugal strategy is described here. Below we will look at instinctive factors which fill this base with specific content.

Briefly speaking:

In order to implement the advantages of sexual selection, male should be eager to mate as much as possible. They are the fighters for QUANTITY of offspring because their qualitative mating potentials are practically unlimited.

To achieve the same goal, females having limited childbearing potential, are eager to get the best quality of posterity. Due to this fact, only females are the selecting subjects and they are interested in the maximum widening of the pool of potential partners in order to ease the choice of one with the best qualities while denying all others.

About our primeval "ego".

Within me are two "egos"--two poles of the planet,
Two different men, two enemies,
When one of them is rushing to the ballet
The other one is rushing to the races...
(V. Vysotcky)

It is well-known that a man belongs to the species of HOMO SAPIENS of the primate group. Classified relationship with other Primates is determined by greater or lesser similarity of genetic material, which is expressed externally in the resemblance of our physical constitution. For example, the genes of man and a chimpanzee resemble each other in more than 95% of the cases. However, species-specific attributes are not only the physical features, but are also behaviors and habits (hunting methods, marriage rituals, etc) as well.
As all species-specific attributes are hard-coded and passed by inheritance only, (that's why they are species-specific!) so behavior appropriate to the species is inherited as well. For example, the ability of the hunting dogs to make the stance is transmitted by inheritance and especially tightly linked to hunting breeds. Another example of an instinctively conditioned reflex is lowering the eyes as an acknowledgement of subjugation to another. This is typical for Primates, including humans. In the same situation, the dogs lower their tails. This kind of inherited behavior is commonly called "instinctive" and its separate aspects are called "instincts". There is a term "inherent behavior model" which denotes such instinctive behavior programs. Such an interesting act for our topic as a kiss is part of congenital conjugal ritual of Primates, which is derived from the feeding ritual.
To what degree is all of this related to human beings? The man has a mind, some kind of laws, all which make following one's instincts not compulsory. However, a man evolved into a modern being and became truly rational only 30-40 thousands years ago but our historical epoch is only 5 - 7 thousands years old. Meanwhile, the evolution of Primates began approximately in the Tertiary period, 20 - 30 millions years ago and such important instincts as obedience to animal hierarchy have existed almost for as long as life itself.
For sure, during such short evolutionary periods of time instincts cannot vanish. They are slowly and gradually formed by evolution and as morphological attributes, disappear only as slowly as they accumulate. So instincts do not ask whether a man can live without them. They are just acting up when they find it necessary. Unreasonable and unexplainable from a rational point of view, instinctive motivation is very logical and explainable in a primeval coordinates system, and it was expedient in primeval times. But in contemporary situations, the behavior realized by instincts is not always adequate and we are often bewildered how evil and blind love can be...
Monkey instincts will live inside of us for as long as we belong to a group of Primates because they are hard-coded in genetic memory. If mankind succeeds in getting rid of some important monkey instincts and fixes the changes in the genes, then man will pertain to another species and probably will be separate from Primates. Development of humanity demanded other than primeval-gregarious forms of marriage, but instincts do not disappear from subconsciousness so easily and keep working, even if their time past long ago.
Individual mind cannot change it's own instinctive programs in any way and moreover it does not know about their existence! It can only to disobey them in some cases but the next time instinct will want to do the same thing again. The lowest level of subconsciousness - instincts, they carry out available programs directly and without alternatives. Programs of middle level of subconsciousness such as traditions and habits can be modified with time. Mind also widely use fixed behavior programs but they are just "food for thoughts" for it. Mind does not exactly carries out the programs but more improvises on a theme.
Instincts direct us by means of emotions not bothering themselves with motives. The instincts, inducing a woman to beautify herself with cosmetics, do not inform her why she should do this - she just wants this and that's all. Logical sense of this is obvious - to attract men's attention but most of women will categorically deny this saying that they are doing this for their own pleasure. However, normal men do not do the same "for themselves"! Such behavior program does not exist in their instincts. By the way, many modern men treat a woman with cosmetics negatively but instinct does not want to know about this. Also it is worth to pay attention that the lower a cultural level of a woman the brighter her cosmetics and she applies it in a bigger quantity. In this case instinctive motives are neither restricted nor corrected by her mind.
Neural structures which fulfill the instincts, arose in the deepest antiquity. Thinking, analyzing or even simply extrapolate is absolutely impossible task for them. They are triggered whenever schematic and static template fitted in instinct matches some kind of external signal attributes which can by chance look like actually required. However, having free and direct access to the motivational centers of brain instincts can evoke the FEELING of it's correctness on any subject. This influence can resemble some narcotic intoxication. Narcotic illusions can also be perceived as high level wisdom. That is why love has no "wisdom". It has only a feeling of wisdom. Actually love evaluate the object of choice very superficially according to a strict (sometimes stupid) genetic program which sets a strategy for choosing a marriage partner. The mind is left nothing to do but to find a way to justify the answer. It is in nature of any person to look for ways to justify the answer when he tries to explain his instinctively motivational behavior.
Real picture of individual behavior becomes more complicated and confused not only because of two "egos" coexisting side by side but also because there is no clearly marked border between them. Instinctive and rational motivations can get intricately mixed. Besides that, for each particular case a person has several instinctive programs of behavior, which appeared at different evolutionary time and sometimes contradicting one another.

Briefly speaking:

A human is born with a lot of behavioral programs given at birth. Those programs appeared at different evolutionary time and due to this fact they often contradict each other.

Mechanisms of carrying out the congenital behavioral programs are capable only of frivolous analysis of the surrounding, which suggests an only formally superficial comparison of the surrounding with the schematic signal attributes fitted in these programs.

Adequate resemblance of the external conditions with these signal attributes creates one or another emotion inducing a human to carrying out an appropriate instinctive program.

The real motivations of the actions are not realized. To explain instinctively motivational behavior, the remotely occasional arguments are drawn which have much closer resemblance with just a desire to justify the answer no matter what.

About hierarchy in a herd.

Impudence is a second fortune. (commonly known banality)

In theater as in life, the most demanding
person is the one who has not paid for a
ticket. (a French proverb)

There are no equal rights anywhere at all. Those outraged by unfairness in our society can comfort themselves with a fact that in a world of all other animals the situation is much worse.
While feeding a group of mice, it can be noticed soon that every time the best and the biggest pieces always fall to the share of the same specimens. These ones occupy the best places for resting and have the highest number of mating.
The other ones are satisfied with remnants after the first ones, the third ones - with whatever left after the second ooones and so on... I.e., there is a certain hierarchy within a group.
One of the most magnificent description of hierarchical relations was given by V. R. Dolnik [1], I just can't agree with his statement that human hierarchy is formed only by men (see below in details).
Such hierarchy is known among all kind of beings which lead even rudimentary grouping lifestyle. Even amoebas have rudimentary hierarchy. The places (ranks) in this hierarchy commonly marked by letters of the Greek alphabet: alpha is a high-ranking specimen, omega is correspondingly a low-ranking specimen. However, this definition system is not completely fine, in the large groups hierarchical structure divest its linearity of alphabetical row and becomes more reminiscent of pyramid where several beings can have practically equal rank. Highest rank beings are also called "hierarch", "dominant". V.R. Dolnik suggested to use the term "ringleader" - rather roughly but true.
Obvious the rank in such hierarchy has a huge significance for each member therefore the members of a group constantly compete with each other for rank advancement or rank preservation. The higher the rank the fiercer the struggle. Sometimes it might happen that alpha takes from life less then beta because it is too busy with struggle. However, alpha reserves the right, at least theoretical, to take away any piece from beta.
The rank of a being in a group depends on correlation of ranking potentials of this being with the other specimen in the group, so the same being can have different ranks in different groups.
But what is ranking potential? Obviously it is closely linked with physical strength but it is not determined by it unequivocally. Wasps ranking potential, for example, is identified by the number of bristles on particular body parts. Rooster's ranking potential is identified by the height of his comb. The number of bristles (height of comb) just shows the rank but does not determine it and the other beings are guided by these attributes which are coded by the same genes as ranking potential. The same happens with the other animals but not all of them identify ranking potential in a such simple way. Even among the animals with not too high organization (for example mouse) good physical strength only allows avoiding the lowest places in hierarchy but does not guarantee the highest. The higher animal's level of development the weaker correlation between ranking potential and physical strength.
Since very different species, especially including very primitive ones which are incapable of learning, possess hierarchical behavior, so it is possible to admit surely that the base of a ranking potential is given to a being with its birth (maybe together with bristles or something like that). Specific low- or high-ranking behavior is started showing from the first days of life. Thus, behavior of a being inside the hierarchy is controlled by indigenous behavioral mechanisms, i.e. by instincts.
Victor Dolnik calls this ranking potential "the power of IMPORTUNATENESS". Well-known psychologist Vladimir Levi calls it "power of IMPUDENCE" and that is possibly more precise. They prove that the crucial component of ranking potential is ASSURANCE in a own superiority, possibly and very often, not supported by any real merits and even totally groundless. Indeed, assurance of one person can hypnotize the other one and including himself or herself. It can be assurance of a student before passing the exam, or a driver in front of a policeman, or guru in front of believer, or a politician facing a crowd, or a leader of a sect facing his followers, and etc... <...>
Usually, alpha concentrates on internal struggle with greater determination, persistence and pleasure which often turns into end in itself. This struggle is much less pleasant for omega - he is more inclined to yield. From here there is one more parameter affecting ranking potential - ranking potential is a degree of compliance (or vice versa - degree of propensity to conflict). Acceptable volume of conflict tension is directly linked with ranking potential for each being - the lower ranking potential the less intensive conflict causes the sense of discomfort.
The number of vacancies on hierarchical Olypmus is limited by default and does not depend on average ranking potential. In other words, increasing ranking potential of all beings in the group the number of high-ranking beings will not increase. The same hierarchy will be formed but probably even tougher and more aggressive.
Different degree of individuals' compliance has a very important biological meaning. It allows to decrease tension of internal struggle within a group and thus avoiding needless death of its members. The spreading of the conflicts in such community or a group, even if they arise, are restricted to the closest neighbors in hierarchy instead of everybody-against-everyone. Besides, altruism of "omegas" opens a possibility to consolidate the efforts of all members of the group on its fight for survival which is particularly important for species possessing no big physical abilities. Exactly this circumstance combined with "alphas'" higher death rate (in part due to the conflicts between themselves) prevents unlimited growth of the average ranking potential of the species. Not only the strongest specimens survived, but also the strongest and the most organized groups.
In fact, there are two possible ways to congregate a group - the military and voluntary. The first approach assumes rigid hierarchical structure of subordinance with ruthless suppression of any disobedience of subordinates. The second is based on altruism assuming sincere and volunteer help of group members up to self-sacrifice. The first approach is predominant among more primitive species as the more native for basic instincts, reliably implemented in reality, and requiring no any kind of substantial intellect. But it becomes ineffective for organization with very complex collaborative behavior. Obviously that living in extremely dangerous (in terms of predators) Savannah, our ancestors went the most of the evolutional path using the military form of group consolidation. Altruism became a relatively mass phenomenon only when development of intellect made very complex behavioral schemes possible. In its turn, widespeading of altruistic forms of behavior even more complicated human behavior and created prerequisites for even faster acceleration of social evolution that set Humans apart from the rest of the animal world. Thus altruistic behavioral programs appeared in comparatively later evolutional time and did not have enough time to be firmly embedded in genes. Therefore, altruism, so essential for mankind, has to be conveyed by non-genetic means, those which form a notion of "culture". However, the stronger the genetic base of altruism the higher the cultural level under the same conditions.
Ranking potential can be initial (inborn), actual and visual. Initial is given at birth and is not subjected to upbringing or environmental influence but rather mainly determined by genetic inheritance and less by conditions of prenatal development. Actual ranking potential greatly depends on circumstances. It is determined by initial ranking potential and by specific situation in which the being finds itself. Circumstances can either hinder the realization of inborn ranking potential or encourage its full disclosure and even strengthening. For humans actual ranking potential is typically 2/3 based on heredity and 1/3 on conditions of growing up and care. However, this is just averaged statistical data and for a specific person this correlation can be different.
Since ranking potential is defined by different attributes, including ones which are not interrelated to each other the real hierarchical portrait of a specimen can be MOSAIC, i.e. when some attributes point to a high rank but others to low rank. For instance, untidiness is an indication of a low rank. Noticing untidy person we usually not without grounds judge him as loser who achieved almost nothing in life, i.e. as low-ranking. However, once he demands to let him cut a line in bold-faced and aggressive form then the majority of the people agree to yield his demand thus admitting his higher rank! Even though, the social status of this person can be extremely low!
Here is another example (although fiction but it has many parallels with reality). An old song about a brave captain of a ship says that:

... he survived fifteen shipwrecks,
pirate assaults, drowning, and shark attacks
but he was never scared.

Here we see a person who takes relatively high-level position (captain!), who is capable to fight and survive and that means this person has high enough ranking potential. However, here we can mention low primativeness of our hero and that will be discussed later. But here is how the same person behaves himself with women:

...he blushed fifteen times,
stuttered and turned pale,
and never dared to smile nor say "hi" to her.

But this behavior is mostly typical for a low-ranking being! At the same time there are plenty of men who are at ease and very bold with women but desperately chicken-hearted and compliant when it is necessary to put up a real fight. From mosaic of the ranking potential as general notion is derived a notion of visual ranking potential as a sum of signaling attributes, possibly secondary ones, expressed prominently enough for triggering the other specimen's instincts. A good example of the visual rank is a low-ranking rooster with a glued-up big comb. Such one is perceived by all other roosters as high-ranking but once the added comb is removed, its status plummets down. One more example, a person suffering from narcissism (a person who is "in love with himself") can produce an impression of high-ranking on some people. But at the same time he can be completely deprived of ability to fight for his place under the sun that is the very essence of high rank. On the other hand, a friendly person, even quite successful in life, can make an impression of low-ranking.
Moreover, different specimens can be impressed by different signs of ranking potential, i.e. sensitivity of the different specimens to the different signaling attributes comprising the pattern of the specimen's image can vary. Visual rank can be equal to actual rank but might be not. As it was mentioned above, this happens because the neural structures implementing instinctive behavioral models arose in the deepest antiquity. They are relatively primitive and react on surrounding conditions very superficially and stereotypically. A specimen can be low-ranking by nature but possess one or two visual attributes of a high rank. Then these one or two distinctively visual (signaling) attributes can have an affect on someone, despite of the objectively low-ranking potential of their owner. Alas! Even their own primeval goals are achieved by instinctive programs only on average and with high inaccuracy due to the primitive mechanisms of their realization.

Briefly speaking:

Humans as all other gregarious animals have propensity to form hierarchical social structures where behavior is regulated by proper instincts.

The ability to take a certain rank in a hierarchy called ranking potential. Ranking potential is defined by many parameters, starting with physical power, but for highly organized creatures, it is mainly defined by an individual's profound confidence (primarily, innate) in his/her right to be above others, probably neither supported by any real merits nor having any grounds.

Other most important elements of the rank potential also are: conflictability, i.e. a desire to initiate conflicts; then, conflict endurance, i.e. ability to withstand conflicts dictated by someone else; then, the degree of compliancy (or incompliancy)- that can be either closely connected with the above named factors or can be an independent phenomenon.

Due to the certain independence of the factors affecting ranking potential there is a possibility that hierarchical status will be revealed as mosaic, i.e. when some attributes point to a high-ranking potential but others to a low and thus, it is acceptable to judge about ranking potential as a general notion.

Right from its birth every specimen has a certain ranking potential which is conditioned as much by hereditary factors as conditions of prenatal development and serves as a foundation for the actual rank in the adulthood.

Actual ranking potential depends also on conditions of growing up, upbringing and formation of personality. All these can either suppress or empower inborn bases of ranking potential.

Visual ranking potential is defined by presence in specimen of one or more secondary but nonetheless clearly expressed attributes of high- or low-ranking potential.

Visual ranking potential often can be illusive, i.e. not corresponding to the real ability of a specimen to ranking struggle.

About primativeness and culture

What is the difference between woman's logic and
iron logic?
- Woman's does not rust. (an old anecdote)

To the English reader: "Primative" - is NOT misspelled "primitive"! This is a scientific term offered by the author, originating from "primary" and "primates", that is described below.

In contrast to the majority of animals, different people are subject to instinct's influence with different degree. If someone is not subjected to instinct's influence completely, but lives by rational thinking that means such a person is absolutely non-primative (in real life such people do not exist). The other man that is directed in life only by feelings, that is to say is fully subject to the instincts, is absolutely primative (such people sometimes exist in real life). D. Zaraiski introduces a term "power of the model", which is an index of ability of a given behavioral program to dominate among similar ones. This is because for each situation a brain usually has several behavioral programs, among which there are both innate and obtained, and which one of them will be accepted for execution under other equal conditions depends on the power of each behavioral model. So, primativeness is a degree of domination (power) of instinctive over rational models.
Rudiments of non-primative behavior are observed among many higher-level animals, more significant traces of it are seen among Primates, but only in human society did non-primativeness become relatively mass phenomenon.
The term "primativeness" is not identical to the term "culture". Culture is kind of a derivative of primativeness. Among artistic people, even with a highest level of culture and decency, the people with high primativeness are predominant as such people live in a world of feelings.
Although a term "culture" is intuitively clear without any explanations, it is very difficult to give it a precise definition. It is obvious only that culture is a product of upbringing and education (in the broad sense) and primativeness is something inborn. Primeval motivation of a cultural man is suppressed by upbringing and is replaced by requirements of the laws and societal traditions. However, it can appear on occasions when the laws and traditions do not determine the situation strictly and leave some freedom, and also under influence of alcohol or in times of strong stress. The higher the primativeness, the more often and stronger the appearances are. The old dispute about physicists and lyric poets is actually a dispute about primativeness.
The primativeness correlates more with emotionality than with culture. Instinctive programs, when finding resemblance of internal signaling attributes with some factors of outside situation, create corresponding emotions and a highly primative person gladly submits to them. A low primative person, feeling the same forceful emotions, is capable of acting contrary to them.
As ranking potential, the degree of primativeness is basically determined genetically and by uterine growth conditions. It changes inconsiderably during upbringing and education, however, it can have influence on the behavioral manageability and the ability and propensity to certain kind of education. It can happen that a man with a strong scientific education does not trust his knowledge in everyday matters, relying more on feelings, and vice versa. A man with very low primativeness lives kind of outside of primeval hierarchy. On the other hand, a highly primative person is very sensitive to the rank of the people around, recognizing the smallest display of concession as a signal for beginning of hierarchical attack, but meeting someone with superior rank causes him a will paralysis and vile toadying.
The higher the inborn primativeness the greater the pedagogical efforts are needed to make a cultured person. In the next generation, everything repeats once more. The man whose culture achieved only by immense pedagogical efforts can have extremely uncultured children because the base remained the same. A newborn child, of course, has no mind and therefore lives according to instincts regardless of the level of inborn primativeness, but soon this level will begin revealing itself. There is a very important nuance: primativeness is not an indicator of a power or a weakness of one's mind. It is a degree of confidence to one's mind in practical cases. Highly primative but highly intellectual scientist can easily combine strong scientific knowledge with sincere religious faith which dates back to the instinct of submission to alpha.
As was mentioned above, women trust intuition and feelings more than logical conclusions, this composes a so-called woman's logic. I.e. the highly primative specimens are prevalent among women. It is known that girls study better than boys in schools, universities and other institutions even in ones with technical majors. While studying, not only theory is lectured, but also practical tasks are solved, and laboratory works are held. And girls are doing this better than boys! But when the time comes to utilize the knowledge in practice, the much needed thought does not come to mind.
The fact that women are more religious is also caused by higher primativeness - there is no rank higher than God's, but it does not really matter whether a God exists or not in the first place.
Undisputedly, a man as a social being is very multidimensional and is not completely fitted into the three dimensional space: low-high primativeness, alpha-omega, and high-low culture. However, the events interesting to us occur exactly in this space. And also it is worth to make a point that primativeness is a general notion, showing average power of all instinctive behavioral programs. However there are quite a lot of such programs, including contradictory ones, and each can have different power, and that tangles up even more the observable scene.

Briefly speaking:

Primativeness is an indicator of power of inborn behavioral programs relative to rationally motivated behavior.

Externally it is expressed in an inclination to emotionally based actions and has only an indirect relationship with intellect and culture themselves as well as to temperament in the choleric - phlegmatic axis.

About princes and princesses

THE WOMAN - is a female who has a MAN;
THE MAN - is a male who has MONEY. (an anecdote)

What a pity that generals get married while in
lieutenant's rank! (from the conversation of two old virgins)

Such exclusively important for all animate world process as reproduction could not be left without the control of the instincts. Correspondingly, love, as the strongest feeling, is a voice of the same primeval instinct that forces to prefer the best being of another sex for mating. And what are the criteria of this preference? It is unnecessary to prove that these criteria are kept unchanged since primeval-herd times when all the instincts were formed. It is possible to say that during its formation the instincts "took a photo" of the situation existed at that moment and keep verifying with this "picture" for as long as the species exist. Thus, the instincts allow choosing a perfect partner from the primeval point of view. The simplest and the most demonstrative attribute of such superiority in primeval hierarchy is a high rank. Though it is very obvious that rank, strictly speaking, is more of visually superficial indicator of preference but it is almost impossible to imagine anything better in unwise nature. External attractiveness (beauty) is less reliable in this sense. In general, the number of couplations is the simplest and clearest quantitative index of a male's rank in hierarchy. For females this correlation is very weak and, perhaps, inverse.
It is customary to think that alpha simply takes away a female from beta (gamma...) just as food, however, the rules of behavior in a hierarchy are obeyed by all the members of a group including females. That means there is not needed to take female away in most cases. She herself, complying with an internal instinctive program, prefers high-ranking male. Not in vain, speaking about ideal groom, women mention word "prince". Real prince is not a plebian job and usually he is a real candidate to become king.
Sure, it is not the only tendency. For instance, there is an "instinct of fresh blood preference" manifesting itself as sexual curiosity. The goal of this instinct is a counteraction to mating with close relatives unavoidable in isolated groups. According to it, under other equal conditions the preference can be given to a new and unusual partner desirably from outside of the group. The instinct is clearly seen in male's behavior, since it conforms well to the principal of unlimited sexual expansion. In female's behavior it is seen with some limitations. These limitations mandatorily include ranking potential of a "guest" that should be not lower than certain minimum. And of course, these tendencies are combined with individual tastes and sympathies. It is important to emphasize that the high rank of a male does not give a GUARANTEE of access to the certain female, but it is a weighty factor raising PROBABILITY of this event. A correlational factor between sexual attractiveness of male and his rank is different among the species, and substantially non-linear. Males of the first several ranks of hierarchy can be almost indistinguishable by their sexual attractiveness for females. Therefore dominant males must fend away sub-dominant males from females. However, beginning approximately from the middle of hierarchy and below sexual attractiveness of males decreases so much that dominant can afford not to worry. It is highly probable that such male will not be admitted by females themselves.

To the English reader: Now let us tell you a couple of words about such picturesque character of Russian anecdotes, as the captain Rzhevsky. Captain Rzhevsky was a hussar. Hussars were an elite kind of cavalry in Russia in 19th century. Only tall, healthy, often handsome men were accepted. Beautiful uniform along with a huge mustache made them very popular among women. Soon the word "hussar" became synonymous to Don Juan. Captain Rzhevsky completely matches this definition. Along with phenomenal success among women, he was distinguished with self-confidence, vulgarity and ignorance, which he was not ashamed of. This character is very much like 19th century captain Frank Drebin from the popular movie series "Naked Gun". For example, one of anecdotes of a series about captain Rzhevsky:

 Once captain Rzhevsky was dancing on ball with a noble young lady.

Subbenly she is telling him politely:

- Ah! I am not feeling well. Would you   excuse me for minute, I need some

fresh air?...

- Captain: OK, go. But be quick on it.   Just fart off and be back.

Cornet Obolensky is more delcate character of these anecdotes.

Now for illustration, an old but very demonstrative for our topic anecdote:



Once cornet Obolensky asked captain Rzhevsky:

Captain, sir! Would you share your experience in seducing women so quickly!

- But what's here to explain? Come up ttto a lady and ask: "Ma'am! May I stick

it in?"

- But captain! That's a sure way to be slapped in the face for such

rudeness...

- Well, there could be a slap in the face. But nonetheless, I somehow still

manage to stick it in.

And now let's imagine that cornet followed the captain's example. Imagined? So what? You are absolutely right. He will get slapped in his face. However, it does not follow from the text that cornet is less attractive than captain and moreover, he is obviously more civilized and decent. Also let's imagine that captain expressed his proposition in oversophisticate and delicate phrases. Will he get a rejection? Of course not, but even more possible consent. But what if cornet will propose in the same refined language? In this case he might not get slapped in his face immediately but the final result probably will be the same though for some time he will be kept on a short string and jerked around. And he will be ridiculed. I.e.

actually it does not have any serious significance for a woman HOW a man expresses his desire but it is extremely important for her WHO does it.

If a man has a high rank ("captain") then women will forgive him almost any behavior and almost any weaknesses; if he has a low rank ("cornet") then even complete impeccability will not help him.
Moreover, captain really does not see any problems with this. Neither he has them personally nor he even suspects that the other men might have them. Because he does not assert any efforts to conquering women (moreover, women themself often put up certain efforts to win him) and he sincerely thinks that women treat all other men the same. But who of these two will be a better husband (faithful, decent, hard-working...)? Anyone but the captain! But whom will women want to marry the most? You are right, the captain. And in addition to this, in original (movie "Hussar ballad") the captain Rzhevsky was an open and convinced opponent of Hymen.
It is said that women love masters. This is true, but it is only individual case. Even possession of "strong elbows" i.e. the ability and readiness to fight for one's own interests, is an individual case in conjugal relationships. Love, as a call of instinct, can not contemplate and that's why it is often triggered on visual rank rather than on actual one. It happens that "captain" looks like pitiful whiner crying that he is so perfect and superior but the ungifted people around do not appreciate him; or like capricious child with child-women egoistic character and all people tiptoe around eagering to please him in every possible way (any other cases are possible). The main thing is that he is sincerely sure in his own superiority. It is obvious that such whiner and moaner is not the worthiest family continuer (even from primeval point of view) and the actual rank of these people as an indicator of their ability to succeed in life is very low. However, instinct formally reacts to the above mentioned assurance which is the main signaling attribute of a high rank. Since instinct does not bother itself with explanations and mind does not usually recognize such self-assurance as a merit so everybody feels hymned in poems and in prose a mystical and enigmatical sensation of love choice - because it is wanted against common sense and it is unclear what for.
Whom do men love? A Princess is not necessarily required. Men's instinctive criteria of preference are simpler and radically different from women's ones. The main woman's qualities attracting men are the newness, availability and physical perfection. Of course, if all these qualities are combined in one woman then her attractiveness will be the highest and such woman will be the center of men's attention in the first place but only until either gaining access to her body or making sure of no chances to get it. However, this is correct only in respect of women as sexual partners. Men choose wives by rational judgement (only those who have choice and enough brain). The sensational criteria of men's preference of women are much fuzzier due to the higher diversity of men (and hence, their tastes) and less desperate necessity to make a choice. A male does not have to choose a females since he needs them all without any distinction. But women's rank, having big importance in relations between women, is relatively less important for a man. For sure, high ranking woman can turn men's heads more quickly but modest and shy (low ranking) wives were valued at all times. It is well-known that women much more often than men fall in love with their chiefs, bosses, tutors, and etc. whose high visual rank is manifested by their position and partially age.
If high rank is a key to women's hearts for a man ensuring his freedom of choice but for a woman her high rank is a source of problems with men. Average-ranking men are not acceptable for her neither sexually nor platonically (not to mention low-ranking ones) but high-ranking men are very scares and most of them are easy-riders. And if they are not easy-riders then they are hopelessly engaged and not free. Low-ranking woman as every woman preferring "alpha" is still open-minded toward "omega". In some circumstances she can forgive a man his low rank and therefore his other strengths get the chance to be appreciated.

Briefly speaking:

Emotional choice of a marriage partner (sympathy, crush, infatuation, love - depending on the strength of feelings) is implemented in accordance with a system of instinctive criteria of evaluating a potential partner.

In woman's emotional choice of a man the following has the highest significance - man's instinctive hierarchical status (including purely visual rank) that might not coincide with his social status. His physical characteristics takes the second preference.

In man's emotional choice of a woman the following has the most important meaning in equal degree - women's novelty, accessibility, and physical characteristics.

I'd like to remind that we settled not to examine the rational choice in this Treatise.

About the struggle of two "egos"

And I'm fighting, suppressing the scoundrel inside of me
Oh, my anxious fate!
I am afraid of the error, it might happen that
I am suppressing not the right "ego"
(V. Vysotsky)

Back in the Soviet era a poll was held among the students of Leningrad's universities. First, they were asked what personal strengths and qualities they would like to find in the future spouse and second, what qualities in the opposite sex they were attracted to. The priorities ranked as follows (see table 1, 2):

Table 1. Young men opinion
Successful girl		Desirable wife
1	Beautiful	Honest, fair	+16
2	Cheerful	Cheerful	0
3	Likes to dance	Hardworking	+7
4	With a sense of humour	Self-controlled	+11
5	Brave	Energetic	+2
6	Clever	Likes her job	+8
7	Tries to help the other
8	Energetic
9		Tries to help the other	-2
10	Hardworking	Clever	-4
11		With a sense of humour	-7
12	Strong-willed	Strong-willed	0
13		Beautiful	-12
14	Likes her job	Brave	-9
15	Self-controlled	Likes to dance	-12
16	Honest, Fair	Tall	+1
17	Tall

Table 2. Opinions of the girls
Young man with success		Desirable husband
1	Energetic	Hardworking	+13
2	Cheerful	Honest, fair	+11
3	Handsome	Clever	+5
4	Likes to dance	Self-controlled	+12
5	Tall	Brave	+6
6	With a sense of humour	Strong-willed	+4
7	Tries to help the other	Cheerful	-5
8	Clever	Likes his job	+5
9	Honest, fair	Tries to help the other	-2
10	Strong-willed
11	Brave	Energetic	-10
12
13	Likes his job
14	Hardworking	With a sense of humour	-8
15		Likes to dance	-11
16	Self-controlled	Tall	-11
17		Handsome	-14

It was not the goal of the poll to find out the attitude to primeval rank. Otherwise, such feature as "to take everything of one's own from life" (and why not somebody's own as well, just to oneself) probably would have taken the first place in the left columns. But even without this, it is obvious that the left columns reflect the primeval ideals and the values of the family life are reflected in the right. Especially it is necessary to emphasize the liking to dance. While it is almost useless in family life, the dancing technique has important ritual meaning. Dance is a part of conjugal ritual of many animals including Primates. The non-dancing one does not demonstrate conjugal behavior and from primeval point of view looks like not sexually mature. It is very indicative that such qualities as hard-working and self-controlling take the last rows of the left columns. "Omegas" were the most uncomplaining in the primeval group and worked more than others... Also it is easy to notice that the left and the right columns are upside-down mirror reflections of each other. It is especially typical for polled women. Men's attitude toward women is a bit more consistent and that confirms the thesis that men trust more to their mind, i.e. they are less primative.
It seems like an "upturning" of the requirements of mind and instinct is the main reason of difficulties in a search for a partner for highly educated people. Traditionally, it is customary to assume that the problem is in the high level of requirements. Taken alone, these requirements might not be so high after all, but they are very conflicting. The heart wants something that is justly rejected by the mind and the wishes of the mind do not satisfy the heart. Indeed, such qualities as kindness, decency, honesty, respect, tactfulness, clear conscience are considered to be the attributes of well-educated, polite, honest man and a good husband, but at the same time from the primeval point of view these are the attributes of low rank in the hierarchy!!!
In the course of this argumentation, the seditious idea is creeping in that the former practice of joining a man and a wife by parental will is not so bad despite its obvious disadvantages. Of course, in terms of the present cult of love, it is stupid to stand up for its revival. This will not cause anything more than a storm of protests and a lot of mockery. Neither can I imagine how this can be implemented in real life now. But in the case of parents, who, searching for the matches for their children, evaluate the candidates from the civilized standpoints, even if they keep in mind their own interests, they thus make a self-selection of HOMO SAPIENS in the direction of increasing culture and development of civilization.

Trusting a call of instincts, mankind is drifting slowly back, to the primeval herd,

And in my opinion, we already observe some attributes of such a drift. Intelligence, sensitivity, mutual respect becomes unfashionable. Opposite to this, brutal force and aggression, indulgence in a riot of desires and incontinence pours in from screens and pages. Writing off all this on the influence of everyday culture is incorrect. Household culture - is the generalized reflection of natural culture of all people. "Soap operas" are most popular among the elderly people whose whole conscious life passed in the soviet time, when totally different ideals were being cultivated.
Lessening of the above mentioned selection at first leads to the growth of primativeness and average ranking potential, and then on this basis to the declining of the cultural level. And afterward, perhaps, Einstein will happen to be right, the fourth (if not already the third) world war will be fought with cudgels...

Briefly speaking:

Following the instincts (i.e. feelings) in choice of nuptial partner contradicts the contemporary ideals of monogamous marriage, neither does it promote the selection of HOMO SAPIENS in the direction of the growth of altruism and the cultural level;

however, it can contribute to the growth of average physiological indicators known as and called acceleration.

About alcohol

Our consciousness is determined by three things:
Being, beating, and drinking.
(ascribed to Karl Marx)

In the course of the above mentioned poll, the attitude to alcohol was examined as well but for unknown reasons it did not get in to the tables. It was found that the girls would like to have a non-drinking husband, but in reality man's sobriety did not give him any advantages and on the contrary invoked some kind of suspicion. Suppressing the mind, alcohol introduces a kind of bestiality in a human image that is so amiable to primeval instincts. You could also notice how often this fateful decision for each man (and for the whole mankind...) is taken in a drunken state and how close relationship between sex and alcohol is. Love, and without Champagne?!
Tests on animals give very interesting results:

Alcohol raises the low rank, and diminishes the high one!

This is one of the reasons of ineffectiveness of the "dry laws" and other measures struggling for a sober way of life. Without releasing primeval instincts and raising the ranking potential, which is achievable by the alcohol in the easiest way, mankind would have faced difficulties with its own reproduction. And the biggest difficulties would have occurred with the worthiest people who personify civilized society - low ranked and low primative persons. We can only regret the negative effects of alcohol consumption and that it is mostly used by the people who do not need any releasing of primeval instincts.
Since there are no alcoholics among animals hence sexual selection does not recognize what it is, and thus, the fact that a certain man is addicted to alcohol or simply a drunkard practically does not affect his popularity among women. Moreover, a majority of women who got stuck with such husbands, put up roughly the same pretext: "I thought he would start a family life (become a father and so on) and quit drinking." But there is no clear answer to the question: "Why did you jump to this conclusion?"

Briefly speaking:

Alcohol, by releasing at large primeval instincts and leveling ranking potentials, eases sexual intimacy, thus increasing the chance for low ranking people, however negative consequences of alcohol consumption are widely known.

Since instinctive sexual selection does not know anything about alcoholism, symptoms of alcohol abuse do not hamper subconscious preference of the potential partner.

About Bastard and Fatherless Children.

A sleeping Reason gives birth to monsters. (Francisco Goya)

It is obvious that the fathers of such children are mainly "captains" - regardless if it was done in marriage or not. Even when an out of wedlock child grows up in a two parent family, (with a step-father who might not be aware...) people around notice the "difficulty" of the child. It is commonly known that out of wedlock children are often regular clients of the criminal groups. Usually under the euphemism "difficulty" we mean the inability to control a child by civilized methods, which confirms his high ranking potential.
The "difficulty" and criminality of a child is usually written off to the problems of upbringing in such conditions. For sure such pedagogical problems exist in reality but these are not the problems responsible for the forming of specific low or high ranking mentality. It is the game of genetic inheritance. Please tell yourself if a man who deserts a pregnant woman is decent? At least not very. However, males in the primeval herd did it exactly this way. But do the features, which caused his indecency, have the right to be genetically transferred?
I will remind once more that the initial ranking potential is something inborn and it is well seen at the infant stage. High or low primativeness is displayed at a later time. As was mentioned the higher the primativeness of a child, the more pedagogical efforts should be exerted for bearing a decent and educated person. It is also important that a tutor should have a ranking potential not lower then a child, (it is usually said that a "tutor should be authoritative over the child"), otherwise all these pedagogical efforts will lead nowhere.
Researches of monozygotic twins separated in babyhood show that the role of heredity in the educational process is diminished and there is no way to correct (nor to damage) everything by education. Quite often such twins living separately in different countries behave themselves like they grew up in one family side by side. This detraction of the role of heredity in a world and especially in Marxist pedagogy goes back to idealistic and utopian conceptions of the past - forerunners of Marxism.
We can accept as proven the fact that friendliness or its main components are predetermined genetically. A man bred out a dog selecting the friendliest wolf cubs for reproduction.

Briefly speaking:

Conceiving a child by reason of love (against the popular thesis) IS NOT the circumstance contributing by itself to the appearance in a child of such qualities as love to the people around and high morals. Since the women tend to fall in love with the egoistic men the child conceived because of love will be more inclined to the same egoism.

Conception of the parent showing UNSEXUAL love to the people in general, (altruism) contributes of the appearance of this quality in a child.

About the husbands and the lovers

Who is a lover??
- Just the same, as husband, but he
does not need to wash the dishes.
(anecdote)

All the illnesses are caused by nerves.
But only syphilis - by love.

(an old medical anecdote)

Here we will not examine a lover like a sponsor or a source of material welfare but let's consider a lover only as the means to satisfy a woman's sexual desires.
It has been proven that any woman can be physiologically satisfied by any man (if we don't take into account medical pathologies like complete absence of genitals). Most cases of dissatisfaction are in nervous and psychological sphere. Something to notice is that the majority of dissatisfied women get satisfaction doing masturbation. It is not a penis that satisfies a woman but a MAN. And he satisfies not as a physical body but as IMAGE, which meets more or less some criteria. If this image fits these criteria quite sufficiently, a woman starts getting a "tuning" to this probably fantasized man. It can be a kind of amorousness, interest, curiosity or anything else... Without this "tuning", satisfaction can be problematic particularly to highly primative women. But if some women can "tune" easily to any man, the others can somehow "tune" to only one of hundreds. Obviously the first probably have low-ranking potential and/or low primativeness while for the second they are high. The "tuning" appears more often with a man whose ranking potential is not lower than that of the female and his behavior goes along with the primeval conjugal rituals. The cases when there is no satisfaction with a husband but rape satisfies instead illustrate that well because a rape is usually performed in a swine-like fashion like it was done in a primeval herd by the high-ranking males. By the way, such a phenomenon is not the last reason why women often do not report a rape to police and in some cases even protect and cover the rapists! Married by the rational decision of the mind, a woman can remain dissatisfied at least for the first time until she gets used to this man. As a proverb says, love comes with habit.
Do you want to force a husband to wash clothes, to clean floors or to look after the baby, etc? Did high-ranking males in primeval herd do such a contemptible job? If you succeed in this (but this is unlikely if he was not inclined to it by himself) your mind probably will be satisfied for some time. However, your primeval "ego" will immediately recognize the lowering of the rank of this male... and you will want to get a lover.

Briefly speaking:

Most probably a woman's sexual satisfaction comes from a subconsciously attractive man even though on a conscious level he might be unpleasant even disgusting. If there is no such subconscious attractiveness of the man (even giving him a logically high mark) then the attempt to achieve sexual satisfaction only by perfecting sexual technique might not give a result. Most likely is the allurement of high-ranking and highly primative men, which are dominant among the most successful lovers.

Even with all the positive sides, getting married by the rational reasons (for kind, honest, decent ...) might be filled with problems of your sexual satisfaction during the first time.

So, of whom are there more?

I had forty surnames
I had seven passports
Seventy women loved me
I had two hundred enemies...
(V. Vysotsky)

In mass media and in informal conversations the opinion is often expressed that loneliness of women is caused by the lack of men. However, there is a well-known fact that there are more boys born than girls! The results of a census in Russia clearly show that the initial predominance of boys remains until the age of 35, from 35 to 45 men and women are approximately equal in numbers and then women dominance becomes obvious. The fact that there are more women than men ON AVERAGE perplexes the society. Women over 50 (who are really much more than men) are not the objects of any real interest as conjugal and sexual partners. But the men are prevalent in their reproductive age. That means that the average statistical woman has a choice during the whole reproductive period and that probably has a very profound biological meaning. Details
I suppose that there is a strong visual selection here - women always tell about their marital problems often and without any uneasiness, but having such problems for men was always shameful and therefore carefully hidden. If a child does not cry, a mother does not realize. A men's deficit could take place if one woman would have been able to marry a few men even unofficially. In this case the other women actually would not have gotten any man. However, in reality women are more inclined to congregate in the secret harems of high ranking married men and they often exhibit such an enviable loyalty that it leaves nothing to do for the other available men. And such women are considered to be single! Meanwhile if the number of men and women is approximately equal (not counting the percentage and even this is on the women's side) so according to "the law of connected vessels" the bigger number of women in single men harems the more other men are forced to pose as staunch bachelors. As a rule, a man who is a lover of a married woman is married himself and he is never faithful so much to both of them that the other women would have no chances.

Briefly speaking:

The public opinion that it is hard to get married for women because of the lack of men is a mass delusion based on superficial knowledge of statistics, intensified by men's unwillingness to disclose their sexual and marital problems.

Origin of family, prostitution, and promiscuity

Dedicated to the cherished memory of F. Engels...

Research of conjugal behavior on animals shows that a family should be distinguished as a household unit and grouping of specimens with the purpose of mating. The fact that in reality both roles are very often combined does not mean that there cannot be any other way.
For instance, those species where one parent is capable of upbringing the offspring alone, family as a household team mostly consists from this parent and its offspring. That means that a male-female union here pursues only the goal of mating and has nothing to do with the family itself, as we understand it. The same can be said about the species practicing R-strategy of reproduction where the parents do not take any care of their posterity. This is one pole of the conjugal world.
For the other species, upbringing of offspring becomes impossible without outside help and thus there is a reason to bring in the second parent as a helper. Species with a strictly paired family structure (for example, birds, especially nesting birds) are another pole of the conjugal world. Here the mating and upbringing of posterity looks as something naturally inseparable. However, as it was mentioned before in such conjugated families spouses do not always keep copulative fidelity. Up to one quarter of all the chicks might be conceived from someone other then the "lawful husband", although from a household point of view such couples might represent idyllic picture.
Well, the second parent is not the only possible helper in this business. Grandmothers and sisters can be brought in and a kindergarten of some sort can be created and so on. For example, a female hare nurtures with milk the first found baby hare regardless of its relationship to her. But which way is more preferable? If the main parent (i.e. the one who fulfills the major part of the job of caring for offspring, most often it is a female but sometimes it can be a male) needs only some additional help that does not play a principally important role, then the help from the whole group in general is preferable. This is done by the canines for example. However if the required help borders on self-sacrifice then this way becomes unreliable. A personal commitment is required here.
How was our predecessor's business being done? Probably the "main parent" was female. It is obvious as well that not every grandmother lived to see her grandchildren, the sisters have their own children and clearly women are worse hunters then men. At the same time a child or a fetus devoid of sufficient proteinaceous food could seriously suffer from malnutrition. In these conditions the help from the men had to play the main role, though not excluding secondary help from the other members of the group.
A typical feature of the hominid behavior is the complete absence of instinctive programs of male's caring for babies and for females outside of rut period. When our predecessors did not differ from regular apes there was no necessity in these programs. Females managed quite well themselves or with minor help from grandmothers. But when our primogenitors became bipedal and the volume of the brain began to increase (with the corresponding intellectual growth) the female started failing to manage alone. From one point the size of the fetus head increased, from another point upright stance narrowed the pelvis of primeval women. This complicated child labor to the point that the child had to be born very prematurely in biological terms and that meant helpless to follow in the tribal paths. From the third point, the growth of intellect entails prolongation of the period for brain formation and training, i.e. an even longer lasting childhood and period of child's helplessness. In fact, humans have the longest childhood relative to their lifetime among all animals. Human childhood comprises approximately from one-fifth to one-quarter of the whole life. Of course, the children of our primogenitors had a shorter childhood. If a contemporary child is helpless almost up to six years old then helplessness of HOMO ERECTUS lasted probably up to two years old, which is long enough.
So we have: a child with the mother who needed prolonged and serious care, forming a smart brain required proteinaceous food (meaning meat) that could not be obtained by a mother burdened by a helpless child, but a male did not have an instinct of caring for the female. Intellect that would have been enable to make such a rational decision was rudimental and was incapable of such action. So what to do?
Since instinctive behavioral programs cannot appear out of nowhere, hence it is required to find out what other instinctive action could serve as the bases for the appearing of instincts of caring for females and babies in primeval males. What can serve as a base for developing an instinct of fatherhood? The most realistic way is sexual affection. However, there is one very important obstacle in the way of using it. The problem is that for most species female's (and often male's) sexual activity is obviously of cyclical nature. Their sexual readiness lasts only for several days during a year; outside of this period (period of rut) the females of such species are absolutely incapable of copulation. Nonetheless, this is the most effective way since sexual attraction is one of the strongest. Probably, one of the ways, if not the only way, is increasing the time limits of rut (specifically, widening the time limits of female's ability to copulate without being fertilized) and concealing the external attributes of the very moment of ovulation itself (see 2 for details). And in reality women are unique among the animated world in their sexual readiness around the year. If a male's year-round sexual readiness is reasonably frequent, then menstruation is known only among females of the HOMO SAPIEN species and none other.
Now a female has something to offer! Thus a male gets a stimulus for her nourishing and other ways of caring for her during the whole reproductive period, (and other manners of caring for her) and by the way the fertilization of this female in general may not be expected. To be more specific, a male in accordance with principle of unlimited sexual expansion, desires the maximum number of fertilized females and is somehow subconsciously interested in impregnating this female. Especially if one keeps in mind that alimony was paid not for the number of children but for the number of copulations. But a primal woman needed only one conception a year for childbirth and not just from anyone but from one the strongest and highest ranking. But who is going to feed her?
Getting a high-ranking male as a breadwinner is a dream but with almost no chances of realization. As a getter, he is not really bad at all (including at the expense of robbery of low-ranking males) but he is in high demand neither is he physically able to feed and support all the females who want him. But maybe only one or two favorite wives. Neither he has any stimulus to this. Why should he pay for copulation if he has it for free? If it were possible to own him monopolistically (as it was said - it would have been the ultimate dream come true) then all the problems would have been solved once and for all. However such monopolistic ownership of a high-ranking male was virtually impossible. Even the "favorite wife" could not rely on him. Of course, she could rely on his preferential (once again - not monopolistic) treatment, but not on his sexual fidelity. Sure it seems like a female does not need much of sexual fidelity itself. At least once a year he will find a time to fertilize her. However, sexual infidelity of such male had certain serious consequences for the female. First, there was the risk of loosing her "favorite wife" status. Second, there was a risk for her of diminishing sexual activity from this male and that means insufficiency of pleasures (low-ranking males are bad substitutes and they do not deliver such satisfaction). And even furthermore, the loss of the "favorite wife" status means lowering her own rank in the hierarchy. But here we are talking only about the "favorite wives" which were mostly the females with high enough ranking potential. What to do for the others?
It is very simple! For conceiving a child and for one's own enjoyment, a high-ranking male was preferred, invoking the jealousy of his "favorite wives" and at the same time deceiving several low-ranking males pouring gifts in wavering hope for a long awaited sexual act that was delayed by the female for as long as possible, up to the complete avoidance in favor of a high-ranking male. But all these low-ranking males simply did not have any other choice but to pay for their access to the body. Even considering that he probably will not be the father of most of the children of this primeval woman. In reality such practice is a paradigm of polyandry. I'd like to point out that this necessity for females to have a breadwinner opened a gate for low-ranking males to have a real chance to transfer their altruistic genes to the descendants. Isn't this connected to the abrupt acceleration of social evolution of mankind observed in the last couple of hundred thousand years based on the strengthening altruistic tendencies in people's behavior?
Furthermore, during the development of humanity, during the transition from gathering to agrarian society (sometimes called the "Neolithic revolution") at some moment getting food from several different men became unnecessary, one became enough, or a rich one became enough for a few females, and even she became herself an economically more viable subject. In these conditions the disappearance of necessity to get food from a few men lead to the automatic disappearance of necessity to give herself to the many men! Due to this fact, our ancestors' desire to secure a nuptial union (either monogamous or polygynous) seems like natural. This not only reflected the new economic realities but hampered the spread of venereal diseases. Automatically it also met some ideals of justice - instead of the primeval "one male has everything, others - nothing, "there appeared" a woman to every man." I have no intentions of exaggerating the influence of ideas of equality on people of the Neolithic revolution, but in this case the equality happened as a side-effect of the above mentioned factors and taken alone was not really meaningful. Moreover, at the beginning there was a predominance of polygyny as more habitual for high-ranking males, but seriously unfair for low-ranking ones.
There is one more important thing to notice. The attitude toward a female as a thing that can be bought (and that does not object to being bought) multiplied by the absence of the male's instinct of caring for the female lead at last to the system known as patriarchy. Matriarchy as the a mass phenomenon did not exist among our ancestors at least for the last ten million years since they moved to the Savannah and probably it never existed at all. There was no instinctive, economic, or any other presuppositions for that. (see 1 for details) And even otherwise, by the reason of high danger living in the Savannah, the role of males as defenders increased together with a kind of militarization of the population, resulting in giving privileges to the defenders (including at the expense of the female's rights). The practice of tracing a relationship based on the mother's genealogy among few peoples reflected only the impossibility of establishing a firm fatherhood under active promiscuity and nothing more. But nonetheless, since patriarchy formed relatively late, it was fixed in instincts weakly and thus could not void the fundamental principle of the female irreplaceability, that is at least half a billion years old. But every time the juridical pressure diminished, the woman became a selecting subject. Let's remember medieval knights. Moreover, even in the midst of patriarchy, a groom himself did not select a bride. It was done by a third party. (usually by parents)

Briefly speaking:

The beginnings of bringing males to take part in the baby's upbringing appeared among our predecessors with the transition to upright posture and bipedal gait and the increasing of the brain size resulting in a complete helplessness and prolonged childhood of the newly born. This created a necessity for material support of primeval females during pregnancy and the raising of the child, which could not have survived without such support.

The stimulus for such male support could be (and became!) only the constant sexual readiness of the primeval women, which is not seen among any other species.

As a result, the copulation became used for two independent purposes: one as before - to conceive the children and another - to pay for the material welfare provided by males. Because of weak inter-dependency of these tasks it is not mandatory to have the same males in both cases, i.e. a peculiar mixture of polygyny and polyandry took place and the polyandry component was based mainly on the material reasons.

The transition to the contemporary monogamous or polygamous marriage was promoted by the economic development of the mankind liberating a woman from the necessity of giving herself to many men.

More about choice

Who makes a choice? In the animal world it is always a female who chooses the male. If a male chooses this will conflict with the fundamental principle of gender separation - a principle of female's irreplaceability. Those few species where visually a male makes a choice can be considered as a short-term evolutionary deviation and even there the female's choice is probably rather camouflaged. For example, a female can make no choice by herself but instead she can provoke males to fight each other and then prefer a winner (or might become capricious and not prefer anyone at all...). The main feature of the selection is that there are a few males on "input" but only one on "output" and the mechanism of this selection significantly varies from species to species. It is obvious that exactly such reflected selection takes place among people. It is considered indecent and even impossible for a woman to make a choice directly without a preceding competition or even fight among men, even if in absentia or imaginary (let us recall medieval knights). Afterwards it is very hard for her not to prefer a man who demonstrates the behavior of a winner.
As we already clarified above, a woman, building her relationship with the men, instinctively pursues two, perhaps loosely connected, goals. Form one side she wants to get as much as possible material benefits from the men (not only instinctively but consciously as well!), from the other side she wants the one who would win her heart. In primeval times any kind of convergence of these goals in one male were possible only for very few females, the majority of others achieved those goals by promiscuity - the impossibility of being fully provided by one high-ranking male, was compensated by the high number of low-ranking males, at the same time given a chance a high-ranking male was usually preferred for sexual service.
However, with the growth of economic development of humanity the necessary conditions for arranging permanent conjugal relationships in a form of monogamous or polygamous marriage. Hence, free changing of the partners after creating a union was prohibited either legally or traditionally. Naturally, the sexual relationships outside of the marital union as the rule were forbidden. Historically this happened at a very late time and that's why it was not fixed in instincts - feelings as usually continued existing in a "primeval herd" state.
In these conditions if potential spouses were given any freedom of choice, then the future wife was put into a very complicated and mostly contradictory situation. From one side she needs a HUSBAND, i.e. who is an assistant in family business and who is able to treat her as a HUMAN BEING but from the other side, since copulating was allowed only with the husband, she wanted someone with whom it would be pleasant, someone she would feel for from the bottom of her heart. As a rule this is a high-ranking male.
At the same time (again, if any freedom of choice was given) it was considered preferable and purposeful to make a choice based on a call of love, which was in full accordance with the instinct of sexual preference, and that's why there was no cause for any objections from those getting married. But by this, family values as a way of mutual upbringing of the children and other mutual support were actually supposed to be left out of consideration. More specifically, it was suggested to rely on luck, though marriage was meant to be for life (the span of a lifetime was necessitated by economic reasons). Although divorce could be permitted but one way or another, it was condemned. Specifically it was suggested to strive for love to the very end. Alas, we well know where it leads in reality. A bewildered mind confuses everything, once and for all, making at last a random or a known non-optimal decision.
Since now personal freedom and with it a freedom of choosing a partner is uplifted into a cult, nothing restrains instinctive calls. Naturally, all women wish to choose a high-ranking man naively thinking that they can easily set a monopoly possession on him. Since in most of the countries a monogamous marriage is established and high-ranking men aren't enough for every women then a deceiving situation appears that it is the men who choose. The fact that not all men can choose goes almost unnoticed. Low-ranking men shamefully keep silence about their personal problems. Yes, having a big success with women, high-ranking men indeed have a possibility of a widespread choice and can realize their choice without burdening themselves with thoughts of a long-term relationship ("HE HAS TAKEN" for his wife... - this is said about them). A dominant man objectively does not need a marriage. Such a man can get whatever he wants from women. Without any problems he will find a woman (and not one) who will cook for him, wash his clothes, serve sexually, and will resignedly raise his children alone, despairingly dreaming about him as a husband.
It is worse for women. The instinct of sexual preference requires choosing high-ranking men, but the reality of contemporary life requires creating a family. By my estimates, high-ranking men are about 10-20% of all men. Therefore all women desiring high ranking dominants create the contest of 5-10 women per vacancy. The so desired men for monogamous families actually are not enough for all - this is the source of all groans about the lack of men. This is another example of visual selection - women's stares get fixed only on captains, the memory carefully stores only their images (although not always pleasant) and speaking about the men "in general" women unconsciously mean only them. Plus of course there is objective selection, which will be described below. In a primeval herd this 10-20% of males would have fertilized all females, all females would have been satisfied, including sexually as well. However, one wants him to belong only to herself, isn't that true? But he has a different opinion regarding this ...
The low-ranking men are in the worst position. Everybody gets at them - omega is beaten by everyone, but concerning women - they get "only grief". However, from the side of family values they are more preferable over "alphas" . At least, they are more faithful. Their problem and the reason for loneliness is they do not excite any interest in women. Therefore, among the men liked by women there are really only a few decent ones.
A low-ranking man mainly needs a marriage only for getting sex and having children. Without marriage he is "slapped in his face" and even in family life he is constantly in danger being deprived even if he gets his luck and succeeds in getting married. (But is it really a luck if such men do not get good wives?). So a low-ranking man is sometimes allowed to have sex in exchange for doing other home chores, with which he copes better then high ranking ones. Due to egocentrism and visual selection, women are biased to exaggerate men's inability to self-service as well as the burden of women's fate. Thus, cooking and washing are not the main motive for low-ranking men to get married.

Briefly speaking:

The recommendation of "getting married because of love" basically is very contradictory and only leads to confusion, perplexity, and disappointment.

There are two types of old bachelors: high-ranking, who do not need a marriage and low-ranking, who would not mind getting married, but with all their strengths are not needed by anybody...

What the men having no luck should do

It's better be forgiven later then missed now. (from Murphy laws)

It is obvious that it has a sense to recommend something to "cornets" because "captains" easily manage without any advice. By the way it make no sense to ask advice from "captain" either or it will be like in the anecdote. "Captains" conduct themselves with women very differently and their high rank is denoted not so much by their relaxed behavior but by a subtle self-assured mimic and specific face expression.
The root of your problems regarding relationships with the women is in your low primeval status and you would like, of course, to raise it. I can tell how to do this right on the spot: you need to become rich or famous (for example - to make a career). It is also possibllle to get drunk but this will not help for a long time. It is well known that the women love money very much but not everyone guesses that wealth is not the end goal for a woman but it is also an attribute of high primeval rank and women love not only money but also the men who managed to make them. Getting wealthy for low-ranking men was next to impossible in primeval herd. Higher superiors would have plundered everything. In contemporary society it is possible to achieve certain wealth but if your real rank is way below your wealth you might face with her infidelity later. It is pleasant to milk a breadwinner encouraging him with sex but she'd like to have someone different as a lover.
As far as the glory the best way is to become a pop super-star, and save you God from committing heroic deeds risking your own life. Readiness for self-sacrifice is definitely an attribute of a low rank but foul readiness to expose the others (to rule over the others) is the attribute of a high rank!
As it was mentioned above it is typical for people to have different levels of primativeness. The primativeness of animals, especially primitive ones, is always close to maximum. I will remind that a low primative man follows his mind rather than his instinctive programs in everyday life. Since instinctive nuptial rituals are dialogic like password-response, the unconformity of such man behavior to these rituals can seriously complicate his quest for a life companion. Such man may not be apprehended as a sexually mature male.
It is said that women love with ears. To say more this is typical not only for people! Songbird males sing the songs only for attraction of females. For the same purpose grasshoppers cricks, frog male croaks, male cat yawls in march and etc., etc., etc. It is not worth to mention the pop-stars. They are one of the most favorite category of men among women... And yea, they sing mainly about love!
What is more important for success - high rank or high primativeness? For sure, high rank! Captain is forgiven for everything including low primativeness. Moreover, high ranking men with low primativeness have often particular charm and have a big success with respectable decent women. However, they are not the ones who have the biggest harems. However primativeness is inborn feature and it is very difficult to change it even by hard training especially you do not have artistic gift.
Low chances can be compensated by the big number of attempts. Do not hesitate to use favorite women's tactic - having several romances in parallel but take certain measures to prevent crisscrossing of them. At least, you will gain practical experience and probably obtain lacking self-assurance. One of the other ways of gaining experience is to date by classified personal ads but do not treat them seriously. They are extremely ineffective as a search method for a life partner.
Of course, women tend to make fun of low-ranking men but treat this philosophically and do not quit attempting. In any case neither make a tragedy out of this nor fall into depression. Considering that we live in the world of probability and chance, and as it was mentioned above, high rank by itself is not a guarantee for the total success, and right contrary, low rank is not guarantee of a complete failure. All these are the factors which seriously affect the likelihood of mutuality. Besides that there exist an instinct of sexual curiosity...
And one more thing, if your rank is low try not to waste your time on high ranking women.

It does make sense to try some psychological training to raise self-confidence. However, be careful and picky in choosing such type of training and its instructor. If the instructor is really high-level specialist then your chances to raise up your rank (at least visual one) are high enough. Virtuosos can help you in acquiring the above mentioned hardly noticeable self-assured mimicry. For example the following exercise can be recommended: looking at woman think where to kiss her, looking at man think where to hit him. I emphasize that this should be only imaginable exercise. The results maybe noticeable in about couple months. However, be careful with training on men. High-ranking man can apprehend too brave stare as a challenge for hierarchical duel and accept it! But this can be totally out of your plans. Because by hierarchical "etiquette" low-ranking male must lower his eyes when dominant is looking at him.
Trying to display your high rank to women, do not be malignant and aggressive! Remember that the root of high-ranking potential is in the high self-esteem and following from it self-assurance. Probably opposite to it, malignancy is destiny of low-ranking men. Cheerful happiness of self-assured person having success in life, having to some degree everything from life, is not afraid of getting in contact with others, this is a lifestyle and behavior one should try to achieve. Moreover, even the most highly primative woman has some kind of rational thinking and open aggressor can invoke purely rational antipathy.
Never condemn your beloved ones for making eye contacts with other men and perhaps dating not only you, even if you are kept at certain distance - nature made mostly them responsible for the choice, although a lot of water under the bridge since ancient times. And never condemn your wives for irresistible desire to be attractive to all the men - it does not mean infidelity. Remember that without serious reasons a woman will never introduce anything dangerous in her life.
However! Do not waste your time if you see that the distance between you is not getting shorter for a long time - that means that you are kept just for collection. In this case she does not need you but only the signs of your care. Actually the need for signs of men's care for most of the women is the end in itself, the kind of psychological food. And dosed favor is given you in order to make this source of care not drying up for as long as possible. It is proven that very long courting do not lead to successful marriages. And even if you succeed in such case then for the rest of your life you will be considered like half a loaf is better than no bread.
If the initiative of your dates or other contacts (for example by phone) is always going from you but she in the best case scenario just mercifully does not refuse, this is the exact sign that your relationships are hopeless. In this case you are just a specimen of her collection or even maybe, the source of the gifts.
Making the gifts and giving a hand, try to be within limits of the ritual. No way this should look like a sincere self- sacrifice. Gifts should be presented with careless ease. She might be pleased to see how you kill yourself trying to get what she wants because it means that her goal regarding you is achieved but this pleasure of hers will not end up in a pleasure for you. As a rule, accepting gifts, woman does not feel obligated. For example, if a woman asks you to do her a favor that humiliates you one way or another and there is no possibility to decline then the formality and ritual meaning of your submission must be heavily emphasized. Do not rush to accomplish the favor with slavish obligingness - this is the way it is done by low-ranking men but instead do it condescendingly. Thus your submission completely loses its hierarchical nature and becomes nothing more than purely conjugal ritual.
Never try really proving that you are hard-working, sober, careful, responsive, and etc. By doing this you will neither break her heart nor probably capture her mind especially if she has never been married.
As it was said above, different kinds of parallel promiscuity usually platonic are typical for women. So they are inclined to try a few men simultaneously. And if she keeps the sufficient distance with all the tried men except perhaps one, this is the NORM and usual practice which allows to widen the pool of candidates. Such practice in combination with egocentrism is apprehended as craftiness. This term is not really exact because often she does not know herself who will become her choice until the last moment (although as a rule she knows well who is not going to be her choice) and after the choice is done she does not always realize clearly why one is chosen over others. So do not make the scandals and do not strain your relationship over this issue. According to the instincts women simply must behave this way.
"Admitting to body" can be used as one of the most powerful (though risky for the women themselves as well) ways of men's seduction. In these cases, a woman comparatively easy agrees for a short-term intimate relationship which do not suppose their further development and deepening. The main subconscious goal of such sexual connection is to bind a man to herself and at the same time satisfy the instinct of sexual curiosity. On a rational level, woman usually explains such behavior as "having fun". However, after very short period of time (very often on the very next day) you might be refused in continuation of this intimate relationship, possibly with the offer "to stay as friends". Poor thing, if you managed to fall in love with her. In such case the outlooks of reciprocity are next to illusory and negligibly small. Briefly speaking, do not rush to fall in love with a woman only because she had sex with you several times. It might be only a bait with nothing following after but painfully stinging fishing hook. Sure, it does not mean that one should decline closeness. The bait should be accurately eaten without biting a hook (meaning without loosing one's head).
The less we love a woman the more she likes us... This can be applied to Pushkin himself but such recommendations as "never pay attention to her" or "show her the place", "shout" and etc. are suitable for captains and work well in their implementation. Dominant male does need to love women. They love him anyway. And if your rank is low then your deliberate inattention will go unnoticed but your attempt to "put her in the place" will be growl of paper tiger and will cause nothing more then smile or righteous anger.
About woman infidelity. Without examining explicit or implicit prostitution, i.e. sexual intercourse for material welfare, then a woman has liaisons in most of the cases when she is not satisfied with the rank of her husband, especially if the power of her innate program of sexual curiosity is increased. And if you do not satisfy your wife sexually but somebody does then the reason is neither in his special ability nor in the size of his genitals but exactly in the rank. Even the potency is not the first in the list of reasons for infidelity. If she is not suited with something else (low intellect, abusive manners, laziness, and etc.) she will probably leave you rather then start having extra marital love affairs.
Women have propensity to whimper about difficulties of getting married. However, do not apprehend this too literally and do not make illusions that women will rush to you pushing rivals aside (of course, if you are not a pop-star or someone similar with the highest rank). Women even trying to be attractive to all men, nonetheless will keep sitting up until senility and waiting until somebody will conquer them (and they will put up a defense! - the fortitude of which will be inversely proportional to man's rank), thus proving by this his primeval right of close contact, even if there are no chances left. In reality, they want to get married much less than they talk about it. Especially if they are over 30, in this case, besides other things, unwillingness to change habitual way of life is triggered into action (that is also typical for men as well).
Saying "no men" or "nobody pays attention" a woman deliberately or inadvertently cheats. A woman of reproduction age getting ABSOLUTELY no men's attention is something practically impossible (if only men physically exist within a few kilometers). At least she will be accosted by a drunk. Such statements should be comprehended as "not enough real men" or "not enough admirers" and there is none suitable enough among them (and we know who this suitable is). And admirers, like money cannot be TOO much. So, courting a woman, even ugly, never assume that she does not have other admirers, but better consider that you're only one of possible candidates.
However, be careful if a woman is overlooked or competition for her is clearly weak! It is good if only the reason for this is in her unappealing look. Otherwise, the reasons can be very serious. If women reject men for discordance with primeval criteria, then men judging by the mind reject women for more objective shortcomings. The same is true for divorced women. Good wives are tried not to lose. It is advisable to find out the reason for divorce.
Do not be modest and do not criticize yourself. If you have something to be proud of, do not put telling it off thinking that this is going to be a pleasant surprise for her. This later time can never come to true. Also do not assume that she will recognize your strengths herself - notorious women's insight is nothing more than myth. Illusion of women's insight is created by ability to read well gestures and mimicry as ancient nonverbal language. However, only current state of a man but not his biography or moral cast can be determined by gestures. As it was mentioned above, women, following the feelings, evaluate men very superficially. I do not say about all women but an average woman is not so insightful at all which is caused by her egocentrism. If it were not true women would not have suffered from pickpockets in public transportation.
A woman evaluating your strengths (as they are catered for her) probably compares them not with her own strengths and weaknesses (according to the principal of female irreplaceability, her own strengths and weaknesses are less important comparing with the very fact of the women existence) but with the strengths of the other men (also the way the strengths are shown to her).
Please note how shamelessly experienced Don-Jovans glorify themselves not hesitating to lie under some circumstances. Of course, I cannot recommend a lie as a method but whatever you have should be shown at its best. And it is not worth to forget old fellow Karnegy - "Going fishing I take worms with me, though I personally prefer strawberry with cream". I.e., the things that you like might not be of a dislike for others.
Be careful with admitting of love! This can be the end because the conjugal goal of a woman's behavior is to make men fall in love with her and if this goal is achieved then further relationships can get uninteresting for her. You will be flabbily kept just for collection. The very fact that hearing of such admittance is very pleasant for a woman is just a satisfaction of a person who achieved the goal.

Practical conclusions for lonely women

What should a hen running from a cock think about?
-Am I running too fast? (an anecdote)
- As it was mentioned above a male can fertilize the maximum number of females if it cares for each female only minimally needed amount of time. This is the reason for preference of easily available women by men. In other words, after the body was obtained he may lose any interest because the goal is achieved and it is time to take care of another woman. So, we can advise women to avoid intimate contact and even hints at it for as long as possible (of course, except the cases when you need only THIS). If you worry that without THIS he will abandon you that means that he will leave you anyway, and after THIS even faster. By the way, men's love is more transient than women's but often is more powerful. To say, it blazes up brighter but burns down faster. The sense of this for men is the same - not to waste time.
- Do not condemn your men for looking on other women. There is nothing terrible if he does nothing more than looking on them. You also assert all the efforts to make men looking on you (and the more and longer the better) even if you are married for a long time. To forbid men to look on other women is equal forbidding you to look nice and attractive (attract men's looks).
- Slightly simplifying we can say the following: all women like the same men. If you like one man it is very likely that other women also like him, if you do not like a man it is very likely that none of women ever likes him at all. So, if you feel that you have to compete with other women for any particular man, you should know that you will have to compete for the rest of your life even if you succeed in marring him. And if you see that a man looks like a good one but you feel no call of heart, do not comfort your soul with thoughts that another woman will like him. It is very probably that this good man is doomed for loneliness. At school, when mind is not ripened yet, such "anisotropy of sympathies" is well displayed. All girls in the class like 1-2 boys who are objectively not the best. The interests of boys are distributed on girls although not uniformly but more evenly.
  For men such phenomenon also takes place though it is less typical. Men's tastes of women are much more diverse.
- Do not be born nice but be born happy. This proverb is very correct since it reflects the circumstance that men like beautiful women and that's why there is extremely fierce competition for such women where only high-ranking males win. The word "male" rather than "man" is much more suitable here because well-bred, cultured and honest man as a rule does not have high rank in primeval hierarchy and primeval swines hopelessly block him from you, who is so pretty. Besides this, such fierce competition for beautiful women cause women to get illusionary feeling of infinitely wide and unlimited in time freedom of choice. When such illusion disappears the bitter feeling of aimlessly spent years and undeserved resentment toward ALL men is left. But meanwhile there were the same men with insignificant differences flickering in front of your eyes. The men of the other type were busy with those who were less pretty.
  So, do not get your whole mind fastened on your look! Subconsciously evaluating a man from primeval point of view you likely involuntarily attribute to men the same customs and try to increase your own primeval attractiveness missing men's rationality. Yes, there are men who react only on this but do you need them?
  Having perfected your appearance to the best you can achieve a reverse result! Looking prodigiously fashionable and refined you provoke a feeling of your inaccessibility (maybe, a real one). And inaccessible women are not preferred by men, especially by low-ranking ones. How a poet said:
  So the more stylish you look, the higher concentration of "easy-riders" is around you. Of course, we mean here an extreme degree of stylishness, I do not campaign for slovenliness.
- Men follow their mind in higher degree, justly considering some elements of primeval marital ritual impolite, uncultured, tactless, humiliating and so on. You often expect that until the loss of the memory a man will be storming the inaccessible barriers built by you (and the lower the man's rank the higher the barrier's height) but he will consider impolite and humiliating to bother you. Found your defensive reaction, a man might decide that he is unpleasant and annoying to you and will leave in order not to give you unpleasant feelings with his presence. And he is absolutely right from rational point of view! Highly primative and high-ranking man simply does not care that he can be disgusting and his importunate annoyance blocks the reason of your mind, thus achieving the desired result. Those importunate annoyances are the most ancient ritual!
  Low-primative man discards such impolite rituals and assumes that mutual intimacy of intelligent people should be reciprocal since it is necessary for both.
  For example, according to the instinctive ritual you switch your attitude from warm (for baiting) to cold and you are puzzled why he does not fight for you? But a low-primative man is puzzled - why did you suddenly become so cold without any reason? He does not suspect that this has to be done according to the ritual and he is suppose to start conquering you without taking into account any possible impoliteness and humiliation.
  This does not mean that you should be sexually easily accessible! We are speaking about barriers on the way of intimacy of souls but not bodies.
- About man's infidelity. It has been already mentioned above that the instinctive limitations of sexual expansion are absent in men. However, there are two serious issues. First, this expansion can be released only by a man with high rank. Low-ranking man maybe also would like but... Women, whose husbands suddenly became rich, notice that he started betraying or even left for good. This man did not change. The explanation is easy. His rank increased and women began to love him. To love and not only to sell themselves. Second issue, absence of instinctive limitations does not mean the absence of rational ones. Men follow mind much more than women do. You will laugh but men sometimes deliberately do not allow themselves to betray due to moral and ethical considerations! Of course, if you suit him comprehensively.
- About personal ads in classifieds. Men resort to it if their rank is low or they have some problems in biography (conviction, for example). If you write in your personal ad that you want "a kind, honest, etc." then having met exactly such man you will probably find that you have no feelings toward him. And regarding former criminals, be aware that anti-social behavior often is an attribute of high rank. Be careful! Furthermore, you want this man to be well-off. It is understandable but men perceive such your requirement with abhorrence justly supposing that love for money is prostitution (but maybe, you had in mind only his high rank, i. e. ability to "take everything from life").
- Your 40 year birthday is very close but you still have no man. Have you already agreed for any man? But what do you mean "any man"? Actually lowering the requirements for the desired husband a woman usually lessens the requirements to civilized part of his personality but not to primeval because it is difficult consciously to lower requirements for something what you cannot realize by your mind.
- If you really want to get married but not only chat about it you should take initiative in your own hands. The one, who needs something more, speaks louder about it. However, do not try to storm porutchiks. This is hopeless and not original. If you really want to get married but do not want to act, this is, sorry to say, self-delusion. Sometimes it can be enough just to lower the speed of running away but I warn once more about inadmissibility of early intimate contact. Almost every man always agree for that and almost with every woman. His agreement for an intimate contact does not affect the outlook of long-term relationships. Here an analogy can be drawn with your reaction on his signs of attention - you will accept them but this does not mean anything.
  Do you find this to be humiliating and cannot "step over yourself"? I can just feel sorry for you. Decent men do not want to stoop either, especially taking into account that men are less interested in long-term relationships. Trusting woman's "nature", i.e. instinctive behavioral program, that proposes defensive and waiting role of woman toward men, you will again and again recreate primeval environment around yourself where there was no monogamy marriage and a female was taken by the most aggressive and bold male. Expecting such one to be decent is, at least, naive. Speaking in other words, if you are going to sit and wait until somebody finds you then you most likely will be found by a real "male" ("easy rider").
- It makes sense to trust your heart only if your goal is maximum of momentary (especially sexual) sensations. Even in this case if you do not want to bear a difficult child or moreover, if you worry about growing aggressiveness of mankind, it is better to protect yourself from pregnancy. To build a stable family the voice of heart cannot be trusted. Since turned on instinct blocks your judgement you should try to resort to the help of other people who can judge with common sense.
  If mulling over the perspectives of marriage you have a goal to become a Grand-Lady at any price, you, of course, need a high-ranking dominant despite of all the dangers connected with him. But even in this case it is better not to trust the heart. It can call you to the self-enamoured grumbler whose behavior has some resemblance with behavior of a real dominant. Meanwhile, the main value of high-ranking person is his ability to succeed in life, may not exist. It might happen that your beloved one will have neither the advantages of a faithful family man credited to low-ranking males nor the ability to take everything from life pertaining to high-ranking ones but will have only high-ranking arrogance and nothing more.
- Women who were caught by dishonest womanizer often tell the following:"Yes, I understand that he lies to me, that all his nice and tender words are lie but I cannot do anything with me!" This is an example of highly primative behavior. Subconsciousness, realizing instinctive marital ritual, neither can reason by itself nor is interested in opinion of mind. The main thing for it is the match with template. And when it matches the feelings start working with all the cylinders firing! Trusting her mind, low-primative woman will not be caught in this trap - primeval sorcery might not affect her.
- What lies more often a heart or a mind? A lie can be different. Rational judgement is based on knowledge gained during upbringing, education and on one's own and other's life experience. If because of any reasons the mind is weak it can deceive (lets say, fail) due to its weakness. It can fail to "calculate" all the consequences of the situation. That's why with passing years and gaining some experience the number of failures decreases. Experience does not affect instinctive programs at all. And heart does not lie because... it does not promise anything at all! Even if it promises then it promises nothing more than the moment of bliss. Since monogamy marriage is not foreseen in instinctive programs as well as participation of males in children upbringing, so it is easy to imagine the following evolution of events.
- From all the above mentioned does not follow that I appeal to you to reject high-ranking men and to prefer low-ranking ones. Low-ranking man is not necessarily educated, cultured and honest. There are some very odious persons among them especially at the bottom of hierarchical pyramid and vice versa, not every dominant is cad. Quite the contrary, I call you upon not to pay any attention to the rank! What I mean is that you should not come under the influence of hypnosis of high-ranking male blocking the perception of objective advantages and weaknesses. The present touting of low-ranking men's virtues in the text is created to compensate dominating everywhere strongly biased opinion in favor of high-ranking males. But even if I'd like to recommend someone then it would have been the low primative men regardless the rank. Another point is that the heart does not understand them but the triumph of mind is possible only with the appropriate genetic base...
  Of course high-ranking men have not only imperfections and weaknesses. Many of them are very good breadwinners and if you are lucky and his rank is real, you will be much better off behind him. However, high-ranking male is usually always egoistic and the material welfare which he gets may be handed down not to you or not only to you. Moreover, his ability to accommodate himself in life can play a trick with you, he will accommodate himself and succeed in life at your own.
About valor and humiliation
As it was mentioned above, the number of copulations is the clearest quantitative index of a rank. By allowing a male to approach her, a female acknowledges her lower rank. Therefore consent for copulation is one of the most striking signs of acknowledgment of submission. That's why the talks about sex among men are often characterized by bragging and scorning to women and among captains - not only chats. The usual component of curse is the phrase like "F@@k you" that has unambiguous purpose to humiliate an opponent. Though, it seems what can be humiliating in a natural physiological act? Their desire to humiliate even more is considered to be a kind of valor because, although it is sad but humiliation of the people around one is the most widespread way of increasing one's own rank. Especially if it concerns a sexual partner. Of course, women are offended when they are humiliated, but just try to take away such a humiliating man from a highly primative woman. She will fight but will not give him up.
Due to the same reason, men practicing masturbation are scorned. Women's masturbation does not cause such scorn even though it is barely less widespread then men's. The logic is the same: one masturbates -> means that one has no woman -> low-ranking one has no woman...
Ethological continuation

About optical illusions and observational selection

- What are you looking for?
- I have lost the keys.
- And where have you lost them?
- Over there.
- Why are you searching them here?
- There is more light here.
(an old anecdote)

Public opinion is full of the prejudices, especially in this sphere. For example, the women are sure that it is much easier for a man to find a woman than for a woman to find a man, although sociological research proves otherwise, the majority of women are sure that it is a man who chooses a woman, even though in reality it is exactly the opposite. In order to clarify the mechanism of origination of such illusions let us imagine the following example, overdone for simplicity:
There are one hundred men and the same number of women living in some village. Five out of these hundred men are arrant Lovelaces who change the women once a month in average. The other men stay home and rarely hang out. After a not so long period of time these Lovelaces will date all the women but the others will meet no more than one. As a result women meeting each other will be telling approximately the following: I dated six men and five of them were such a ... Of course they will come up with the wrong conclusion -- that 5/6 of all men are skunks, cheats, old foxes, easy riders and so on.
Mentioned above, observational selection is objective. It means that even impartial robots would have fallen into this trap. Besides there is also subjective selection which is derived from the peculiarity of human memory - emotionally meaningful events are remembered at their best. Those 5 Lovelaces will be mostly well remembered for a long time because they excited bright emotions. As a result the only one more or less decent man out of these six will not even be recalled.
It is very difficult not to fall under the influence of such illusions for an unprepared man. Mass media also endorses the distortion of a statistical situation preferring to inform about rare, unusual, untypical events and creating the illusion of their mass character and typicality.

About specifics of behaviour

I am a weak and helpless woman, I won't let you!
I've already sued three tenants, and for such words
of yours you will be crawling at my feet!
(A.P.Chekhov. "Vulnerable creature")

So, biological roles of males and females are drastically different. Lower viability of males due to, in part, more risky behavior, was mentioned above. Obviously, the differences in behavior do not end here and certainly should suit the biological roles. Since the personal value of each female is higher than that of the male because males are born in much higher numbers than needed for fertilization of all females, then there dominate in female behavior the care for herself (and demand of such care from people around her), caution, avoiding risk, and if a self-sacrifice needed then it must be only for the sake of her children as the final goal of caring for herself. Societal traditions are solitary with women primacy because naturally they go back to instinctive behavioral programs - women and children are saved first from a sinking ship. Besides, while there is a great number of the laws and resolutions showing concern for women one way or another, there is none for men. The law takes care either of a PERSON (any person) or a woman.
For example, marriage legislation of Russia and especially legislative practice in this sphere are openly discriminative toward men but nobody pays attention to it. For millions of years everybody got used to this. If a man killed another man in self-defense he would face long and not necessarily successful judicial hardships in Russia. Under the same circumstances a woman probably will be acquitted even without getting a court hearing. And moreover she will be praised. There are many public organizations and movements struggling for the rights of women but there is nothing heard about the same for men. In mass media women's problems are discussed deeper and more attentively than men's are. This is in addition to the fact that even without this, the women are idealized by both men and women and this also goes back to the principle of female's irreplaceability.
It is possible even to speak about men's "presumption of guilt". A husband beats his wife - he is blamed, a wife beats her husband - again, a man is blamed; rape - a man is blamed; divorce - the same; a woman cannot get married - once again, the men are to blame. Yea, men, those villains are to blame for women's unemployment as well. Examples abound. Innocence of a man should be proven every time in such cases. Should you fail to prove it - you are guilty by default! It is the most fertile ground for abuse. Why take care of men if even nature does not take care of them!
I think everybody will agree with the following:
- Women take supernormal care about their health and it seems like men have the goal of shortening their lives. It is well-known that men resort to suicide three to five times more often than women.
- Men have a strongly developed investigative instinct and women a have propensity to known and tested actions (let it be worse but the good old way). Women typically have the primacy of tactic over the strategy - this minimizes the losses in case of failure though it does not allow to score a big victory in case of success. One today is worth two tomorrows.
- Women have a clear inclination to keep low profile satisfying with dull enough life. This can explain for example lower public and business activity of women. Women's soaking in everyday life is a secondary reason (behavior of unmarried women is slightly different in this sense from married). The most outstanding people (that means "more poped out") both genius and scoundrels are men in general. The one who does pop out, takes a risk.
- Women trust intuition and feelings more than logical conclusions. Intuition is based on a past experience and feelings as a voice of instincts are based on experience of a whole species and therefore it is more reliable on average because it was tested by practice. Due to the same reason women better than men comprehend the language of gestures and body language as the ancient means of communication.
- Women are more subject to herd instinct and authorities because majority is usually more often right on average than minority, and authority is a person supported by majority. Also it is possible to mention a higher than men's sexual corporate solidarity among women for as long as it does not contradict the personal interests.
- Average man is more lazy than average woman. It does not mean the absence of lazy people among women but on average it is true. Women's anti-laziness is one of the demonstrations of her concern for herself and for her children. It is not so important for a man to take care of himself. However, laziness is the mother of progress.
- Taking a risk to incur anger I will make a point that burden of notorious "women's fate" is very often exaggerated. And it is so, in order to be pitied even more. This exaggeration in the end goes back to the principle of female's irreplaceability and is tightly interconnected with egocentrism that will be described a bit further.
- Women are not kinder than men! Illusion of women's kindness is caused by instinct of motherhood but it is not identical to kindness and works only in favor of the children.
Victor Dolnik deems that primates' hierarchy is formed by males only. Regarding macaques it might be true but for people it is clearly incorrect. Neither the differences in levels of inclination to conflicts among women nor the differences in power of elbows need any proof. Another thing is that women's hierarchical struggle is not characterized as an open one and generally speaking, is less dangerous for life because of irreplaceability of every female. We can also agree that women's hierarchy is built independently from men's, but they are closely linked together. Anyway, a comparison of male's and female's rank is totally correct. Ranking potential of some ladies is out of limits and easily can get above average men's ranking potential. Let us recall a famous "Tale about a fisherman and a golden fish" by A.S. Pushkin. Ranking potential of the old woman was much higher than of the old fisherman and that coupled with egocentrism lead to what it had lead. Should we throw away the fairy entourage the described situation becomes real and not so rare at all! A children's hierarchy also exists and in general independently from an adult one. However, not any grown-up can tame every high-ranking teenager. Forget about teenagers! Even high-ranking cat is capable of winding its master round its little finger...

About egocentrism

Self-loving is the only romance that lasts for a life. (Oscar Wild)

Egocentrism is inability to WISH to put oneself in another's place or to get in another's shoes. Egoism is unwillingness to divest oneself of one's own interests. There are the terms "reflection" and "empathy" in psychology. The first term means the ability to adequate self- evaluation in eyes of other people, the second term means ability to apprehend emotions of others. Egocentric has both abilities diminished. Non-egocentric person sometimes is called reflective but this is not quite correct.
I do not allege that there are no egocentric persons among men (moreover, the champions of egocentrism have to be looked only among men!) but it is more typical for women in average. Whatever is said about women's emotionality, empathy is the ability to evaluate the emotions of others correctly but not intemperance of one's own reactions on the environment. The ability to read gestures and mimicry helps to read the emotions of others but in order to read the mimicry one has to want doing this in the first place! Meanwhile, the surrounding world and especially the inner world of the others is not interested for egocentric. He is interested only in the world of oneself, right up to self-admiration. This is indirectly proven by women's love to mirrors.
- Egocentric person can answer: Then go without a dog...
- Egoist will probably respond: You aren't made of sugar! You will not get dissolved...
Here is another scene. A bus stopped abruptly. Egocentric women yelled: "Driver! You are carrying a human cargo!" Men: "What is a crazy person running in front of the bus?"
Egocentric did not even try to put oneself in another person shoes or understand what his/her problem is all about. The point is not in the fact that he is incapable of doing this! It simply did not come to his mind. On the contrary, egoist understood everything but deliberately disregarded the troubles of another one. Egoism is one of the important demonstrations of a high rank.
Egocentric is not necessarily a nasty person! He is just insensitive. For example, he can pour out tons of kindness on the person who does not need this without feeling its irrelevance. And also oppressing somebody he sincerely does not notice the inconvenience which he causes. As a sort of this feature we can mention the extreme restraining of egocentric people in expression of gratitude to the other people.
And egocentric can simultaneously be an egoist (what a horror!).
It is determinate that egocentric people are robed in a crowd (transport, shops) more often and they do not notice or feel anything at the very moment.
It is proven that propensity to egocentrism is handed down genetically from generation to generation even among men meaning that reasonably deep and ancient brain structures are responsible for this.
In an age of from 3 to 5 years egocentric children usually do not ask WHY or they do it very rarely although their development does not fall behind from their peers in any other way. They are not so interested in surrounding world as in their own world..

From the biological point of view feminine egocentrism is justified, and moreover, more or less NORMAL!!!,
if every female is objectively irreplaceable then nature forbids women from thinking seriously of anything but their own interests or interests of their children as well as concealing their problems. For this males are especially created.
Try mentally to change the roles of old man and old woman in mentioned above "Fairytale about a fisherman and a golden fish". Can't make it? Don't you say this cannot happen? Correct, this would have been too untruthful even for a folktale. Since the folklore is already touched it is worth to pay attention that if a fairytale presents such character as stepmother then by all means she is nasty, evil-minded stepfather is not quite typical character for folktales. The reason is not in malignancy itself but in absence of concern for the other people and stepchildren needs. The fact that mass media much more often reveals cases about stepfathers' brutality is the result of the mentioned above men's presumption of guiltiness. Folktales are more reliable statistically. If a folktale does not adequately model the relationships between people it will be not a fairytale that can teach children about real life but an idle fantastic absurd. The thesis about statistical reliability of folklore is correct although its correctness varies for all kind of folklore such as anecdotes, verses and etc.
Why does unbearable moral working environment quite often exist in purely women teams or staffs? Because nobody wants to make any sacrifices for the sake of others.
Lower egocentrism can be seen among women who drive car. Driving a car in a traffic is impossible without constant forecasting of the other drivers' actions and concern about predictability of one's own actions. That is incompatible with egocentrism. Women's unwillingness to use rear view mirrors became household word. That's why the average egocentric woman feels quite uncomfortably behind a driving wheel writing this off to the boorishness of male drivers (again, here is a presumption of male guilt!) and therefore decline to drive voluntarily. However, if she drives a car (of course, it is worth to see HOW well) then the level of her egocentrism is lower than average. But this does not guarantee the absence of any other imperfections or weaknesses. However, this egocentrism in reasonable doses is included as a necessary piquant flavor in the notion of femininity.

Ethological sketches.

All people are equal. However, some of them are more equal. (Suggested by G. Orowell)

The subject of primeval hierarchy in our society is extremely interesting itself and perhaps deserves a separate treatise. That's why I suggest in the end to step aside from gender relationships and to look at relationships of the people in general. Especially as this will allow us better understand gender relationships as well.
Primeval hierarchy explicitly or implicitly runs through our society. We can observe this in relatively pure form inside many children groups, especially in orphanages, when mind is not fully developed yet. Gregarious hierarchy and propensity to be influenced by an authoritarian leader without any critical judgment of the one are the instinctive behavioral programs without any rational restrictions. By the way, the children from decent families very rarely find themselves in the orphanages. Therefore, this specific behavior is significantly predetermined genetically. Provoking anti-social behavior of teenagers (and not only them), unmotivated cruelty, baiting of "omegas" (who are objectively not the worse children) are the demonstration of a hierarchical struggle. A low-ranked child occupies not the best place in a street hierarchy hence there is no rational sense for him to take part in it. A low-primative child will do exactly this. He will distance himself from such hierarchy. A highly-primative child cannot do the same since his instinct powerfully requires taking part in hierarchy irrespectively how bad he feels in it. There was a perfect movie after R. Bykov "Scarecrow" where this primeval relations were shown with scientific accuracy. Unfortunately, the end of the film is not plausible. In reality, such repentance of hierarchical leaders is impossible.
Among adults hierarchy is well seen in conditions when civil rights are restricted one way or another. This is, for example, prisons; our army with all its violence and hazing; groups of people with a low culture and especially, criminal gangs, where each new person is evaluated from the point of his rank, and where there is extreme intolerance even to the hint of disrespect.
```
 *  *  * 
```
Inability to feel the own guilt is typical for high-ranking people (especially for egocentric). It is exactly "inability" and exactly "to feel". In other words, their brains have no convolutions creating the sense of guilt. Under pressure of logical evidence he might agree with accusations (in case he cannot keep silence) but he will never sense any guilt. Striking example - J. Stalin. While making the mistakes he was sincerely sure that the "enemies" are guilty in it. And such his assurance was transferred to almost all the country.
Very often a highly primative man subconsciously apprehends a respectful attitude as an attribute of a lower rank and he starts giving orders to this person turning to humiliating submission to a person with a higher rank. There is no middle point for such people: either to order or to submit.
This is the ground where hostility of low-cultured people to "eggheads" is based on. Demonstrating by his culture and education what looks like not high rank such man will never agree with the role of "omega". But this perplexes the instincts and invokes a desire to show "omega" his place. However, there is no precise dependency of cultural level from educational level and fulfilled work, rather it is only probable. An uneducated person may be highly cultured, which is based on low primativeness. It is appropriate to repeat once more here that a low rank is not equal to the high culture. High culture is perceived as low rank but the contrary is not necessary.
```
 *  *  * 
```
Probably each of Russian people observed the following situation at least once. A ticket collector has boarded a public transport and is trying to check the ticket at the passenger with a higher rank who has no ticket. A ticket collector cannot do anything and he looks pitiful despite of his position. This passenger radiates so abysmal and impudent assurance of his victory that some strange and even mystical force makes a ticket collector step back. On a rational level this ticket collector decides not to get involved with this passenger. A high-ranking person can easily stand a conflict with such tension that can cause extreme discomfort for low-ranking one.
```
 *  *  * 
```
Hierarchical struggle is often confused with the aspiration for "one's own significance". A person worrying about his own significance does not need to humiliate the other people, in contrary the easiest way to raise one own rank in hierarchy is to humiliate the people around. I think each of us observed many times and even experienced oneself such aspiration of the some people to humiliate the others.
```
 *  *  * 
```
It is easier to keep the rank than to raise it therefore artificially created hierarchies can substitute natural and self-organized ones to some degree. This "level of degree" is determined with by initial ranking potential of a person leading the group and if it is insufficient then there appears a so-called informal leader and the group can be disband.
Social position and primeval rank are quite closely interconnected but do not strictly determine one another. A person taking high post, increases his rank by this. From another point, low initial ranking potential almost prevent a good career growth. Even if due to some occasional reasons a man with low ranking potential takes high post, he will not keep it for long or in any case, will not grow any further.
```
 *  *  * 
```
Depending on absence or presence of other qualities and attributes a person with a high rank occupying a high position in society can be either a LEADER (also called charismatic personality) or a TYRANT. Leader is usually a person with decreased primativeness, not really aggressive with subordinates, and even capable to some self-sacrifice. Tyrant is usually coward (resulting from his high primativeness) but aggressive. Leader is most likely a case of a person with increased but not necessarily very high rank and exactly with a real rank but not only visual one and for sure with low primativeness. There are many well-known examples when a man occupying high position is henpecked by his wife. This can never happen with the tyrants (to be more specific, henpecking means that the rank of the wife is higher than the husband's one combined with the wife's high primativeness). Tyrant somehow heading a group lives purely by his own interests and in time of danger when the group asks him for protection he can show the cowardice and a desire to hide behind the backs of the other people (strong self-preservation instinct!). Meanwhile, tyrants take the high posts not less but more often than real leaders. In hard times real leaders become apparent and tyrants fall out... That's why a famous joke of comedian M. Zhvanetsky "I directed you - I will take responsibility for everything!" causes laugh since typical leader is very often tyrant who does not want to suffer for the other people. It was written by a poet about such situation:
I will remind you that this song of V. Vysotsky was about a head of a prison who was sent to front together with the prisoners. He was certainly a dominant, at least due to his high position. However, suddenly on the other side of a front line there appears something that absolutely does not care about his high rank and a powerful instinct of self-preservation is triggered in our hero...
At the same time very low rank is also contraindicated for a leader as the party starts playing the king's role or control and management over the group gets completely lost. Obvious case is Russian tzar Nicholas II. Even his undoubtedly high level of culture did not help him. Here is one of disadvantages of a monarchical state - there is a certain probability that it may be headed by a person with unacceptably low rank. The consequences of this are well known from the history. In the other cases it is necessary to fight for a high position what sifts out very low-ranking people. A famous book after Niccolo Makaivelly presents a set of recommendations (like that: a sovereign should never justify for his action) for keeping a visual rank of a leader on a reasonably high level.
```
 *  *  * 
```
"The main point in dispute is to jump to personal attacks at the right moment..." (M. Zhanetsky). Getting to personality, a participant changes the focus from the subject of the dispute to uncovering ranking potentials. And if opponent's ranking potential happened to be lower then he instinctively subjects to higher rank thus admitting his defeat in dispute though he might be right in essence of this matter.
```
 *  *  * 
```
There is a widespread opinion among the vulgar public that it is necessary to beat a wife from time to time. By this a husband beating his wife demonstrates kind of high rank (visual, of course). And this can even attract a low cultural woman especially with high primativeness (masochism probably grows on this ground). Such woman rushes to defend her man as soon as the first hair falls down from his head despite asking to punish him only a moment before. Highly cultural and especially low-primative woman will not act this way. And actual rank of this man can be quite low. Even his buddies may have no respect for him. However, it is appropriate to mention that the instinct cannot analyze anything it just reacts on some key attributes, in this case - aweless attitude to a woman (if he beats -> he does not appreciate -> he has many women -> alpha has many women).
Here is the similar Russian picture: a drunk man in a public transportation is brawling and swearing. Women start yelling: "Are there any real men? Make him quiet!". Finally, a couple strong men or policemen get the unruly passenger down, as suddenly the very same women begin protecting him! Paradox? NO! Anti-social behavior is one of the strongest attribute of high rank and physical power demonstrated by the real men in enforcing the order has relatively loose correlation with high rank. Moreover, defending someone but themselves these men demonstrated a certain self-sacrifice that is an attribute of low rank. If they were able to nail the villain down only by glaring that would have been totally different thing. By the way, observing such gratitude real men will not get involved in fight next time. Women suddenly start feeling sorry for this cad. While he was dangerous the positive feelings were overcast by fear. But as soon as the danger disappeared highly primative mind started justifying the answer (since it was necessary to justify positive feeling toward obviously negative personality) and found that the most suitable word for this situation was "pity". Somehow these women are not pitiful for other people which were threatened by this cad.

About aggressiveness and crime

Never pull apart the fighting people - they
are probably soul mates... (ascribed to ancient Sumerians)

Ethological basics of agressiveness are described in K. Lorenz [9] and V. Dolnik's book [1]. I will allow to share some of my own considerations on this subject.
In the root of many crimes against a person lies a contradiction between criminal's high initial ranking potential and his low social status. This can happen if a man has no any other strengths than primeval impudence that is not enough thanks God for a good career in a modern society. If such situation combines with high primativeness then this man tries to realize his demand to dominate by any means. However, if his social status is low then these means are not a lot. That's the way he comes to crime as a method of realization of ranking ambitions.
In our Russian police high-primative dominants are prevalent that's why law-abiding population is afraid of police almost as much as of criminals. For these people service in police is also a way to realize their ranking ambitions and it is very bad that the form of realization is barely different from the form of criminals...
High aggressiveness of teenagers and their impudence towards adults is explained by that a teenager has to make his way in hierarchy from the bottom up. But this is very difficult because adults occupying the high stages of hierarchy make all the efforts to keep it that way. By making anti-social action a person declares to the people around: " I am alpha, I am above society, I do not want to submit to you but you should submit to me or prove that your rank is higher". I.e. anti-social behavior (contraposition of oneself to the people in a society) has very deep instinctive roots which are as deep as the aspiration to build the hierarchy.
How to recognize the rank of a person next to you? The closer your ranking potentials the harder it is to do, at least from the beginning. Besides obvious assurance and forwardness, high rank is shown indirectly (at least at men) by custom to undo a few upper buttons or to wear the clothes unfastened. And vice versa, fully fastened clothes, quiet voice and a custom to fold the arms mean low potential. But dangerous aggressiveness is typical for dominants with high primativeness.
And if meeting somebody, your eyes as magnetized lowers down, be sure that there is alpha in front of you. But he will stare right into others eyes gladly, noting with pleasure that the eyes are lowered down acknowledging his superiority. It is very important for him, since aggressive and highly primative dominant (tyrant) is usually coward and keeps power over the people only because they submit to him voluntarily. In mentioned above experiments with cocks researchers glued the combs to dominants and despite of their excellent fighting abilities they were downgraded. And this is so because nobody submitted to them voluntarily.
And what if one will try not to subjugate to people? If you rank is low it is extremely risky! No, there is no need to get humiliated either. You should avoid such situations. Your suddenly boiled over pride can give out one impulse of confliction but probably you will not be able to withstand its continuation. But he has already revealed your rank and he knows for sure that you will give up sooner or later. And a conflict is his environment, he gets high because of it. He will refuse to struggle with something what is out of his power (for example with power of nature) but you are right in his mercy! It is necessary to bridle such people but this should be done not by you. Owning a victory over you (and this is almost inevitable), he will harden even more in his aggressiveness. Getting involved into conflict with high-ranking ones is worth only when you are absolutely sure in your victory.
What can be advised in this case? Commonly known advice is not to show the fear. This is true! If you fear that means that you admit your lower rank and hence, you are an easy prey. However, never try to pose as a high-ranking one without a good training. There is a high chance it will not work but an aggression will be provoked. Omega would-be alpha should be punished. The best way is not allow to have your rank revealed at all and to show that you do not play into hierarchical games. For example, if it is possible, do not pay any attention to him or show that you do not care. Without knowing your rank, such a one may not get into conflict because he is coward in a sense that he does not engage into fight unless sure of victory. But he gets such assurance only after your low rank is recognized. Afterwards he will not retreat halfway.

About religion, art, and advertising
Religion as a system of undoubtedly civilized norms (I mean of course the big universally recognized global religions) could not have carried out civilizing functions if God had not had the highest rank, the highest position. Otherwise, a highly primative society with low culture could not be persuaded that making harm to the fellowman was inappropriate since from pragmatically egoistic points of view it was exactly right! At least, in the nearest future. But the fact that it harmed as much personally him as the whole humanity could be simply neither accepted nor realized by a certain individual. In practice, the super-hierarch was anthropomorphized with humanistic qualities which were being digested by congregation as samples for repetition because of his highest hierarchical status.
It is worth to pay attention that practically all religions appeared in the low levels of the society. It was extremely important for a person with low-ranking potential to have somebody "above" and at the same time it was wanted this one above to be just, kind, and merciful.
Aura of assurance which circumfluenting most of "saint books" (for example the Vedas) is the inexhaustible source of authority together with complete incomprehensibility of the content. Sense and value of these books are entirely lost for a modern man (not researcher) that's why their influence cannot be explained by the value of the contained information. On the contrary, self-criticism and public doubts which are typical for a real science severely damage the attitude to it from unscientific public.
Talented piece of art is also able to convince in anything as it directly affects subconsciously instinctive mechanism of brain. This is the purpose and the social destination of art - to convince in anything that is otherwise impossible to persuade or to prove logically (for whatever reason) in any way. However, whatever is proven this way is not always good in reality.
Modern advertising shamelessly and impudently exploits instinctive programs. Instincts are devoid the ability to rational analysis. So, finding the right hacking tool (template) to a man's instinctive programs makes possible to force a person to want virtually anything. The main point is to demonstrate assurance. Any proofs or detailed explanations beyond that is redundant. It is necessary to pay attention how the commercials are done. As a rule they are pretty illogical but very emotional. Information is presented in a very high pace, often tangled but attention is diverted with something flashing. Often text is read with a speed of machine gun. All this based on the fact that subconscious with its templates works much quicker than mind and if a mind is not given a chance and/or time to look into the situation (and probably to protest) thus making possible to instilled anything to man. The most deceptive mode of advertisement perception is to pay no attention to it. In fact, only mind misses it and it goes directly to subconscious. And that's what really needed.
1996-1999
All articles of Anatol Protopopov Freqently Asked Questions

Other popular publications (1-8 in Russian).
```
 1. V.R. Dolnik    Ethological excursion in forbidden gardens of humanitarists

                 "Priroda" N 1,2,3 for 1993y., accessible in Internet.

2. V.R. Dolnik    A Gender - riddle of life or life - riddle of a gender?

                 "Chemistry and life" N 3,5 for 1995y.

3.                Two genders - what for and why?

                 "A Science and life" N3 for 1966y.

4. A.A. Travin    Etudes under the theory and practice of evolution

                 "Chemistry and life" N 1,2,3 for 1997y.,  accessible in Internet.

5. V.A. Geodakian The Evolutionary theory of a gender

                 "Priroda" N 8 for 1991y.,  accessible in Internet

6. S. Afonkin     Well why we not hermaphrodites?

                 "Chemistry and life" N 3 for 1997y.accessible in Internet

7. V.P.Ephroimson A pedigree of altruism.

                 "New world" N 10 for 1961 y.    accessible in Internet

8. V.R. Dolnik    Such a long, nobody's understanded childhood..  accessible in Internet

9. K. Lorenz      Das Zogenannte Bose: zur Naturgeschichte der Aggression (Wienn, 1963)

10. David Buss     Evolution of Desire - strategies of human mating.

                 FAQ accessible in Internet  Original / Commented by Anatol Protopopov

11. A. Protopopov  Correlation between Male and Female Populations for Different Age

                 Groups with Respect to Problems of Choosing a Marriage Partner.  Here

12. A. Protopopov  Some Statistical Data Concerning Marriage Adverts Efficiency  Here

13. A. Protopopov  Phallus as a mirror of hierarchy  Here .
```
Works of fiction on theme
```
1. W. Golding    Lord of the flies  Here 
```
Send letter to author

2010-11-15T17:31:00.001+01:00

Published on Psychology Today (http://www.psychologytoday.com)

Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

by ,

Created Jun 21 2007 - 11:00pm

Human nature is one of those things that everybody talks about but no one can define precisely. Every time we fall in love, fight with our spouse, get upset about the influx of immigrants into our country, or go to church, we are, in part, behaving as a human animal with our own unique evolved nature—human nature.

This means two things. First, our thoughts, feelings, and behavior are produced not only by our individual experiences and environment in our own lifetime but also by what happened to our ancestors millions of years ago. Second, our thoughts, feelings, and behavior are shared, to a large extent, by all men or women, despite seemingly large cultural differences.

Human behavior is a product both of our innate human nature and of our individual experience and environment. In this article, however, we emphasize biological influences on human behavior, because most social scientists explain human behavior as if evolution stops at the neck and as if our behavior is a product almost entirely of environment and socialization. In contrast, evolutionary psychologists see human nature as a collection of psychological adaptations that often operate beneath conscious thinking to solve problems of survival and reproduction by predisposing us to think or feel in certain ways. Our preference for sweets and fats is an evolved psychological mechanism. We do not consciously choose to like sweets and fats; they just taste good to us.

The implications of some of the ideas in this article may seem immoral, contrary to our ideals, or offensive. We state them because they are true, supported by documented scientific evidence. Like it or not, human nature is simply not politically correct.

Adapted from Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, by Alan S. Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa, to be published by Perigee in September 2007.

Men like blond bombshells (and women want to look like them)
Long before TV—in 15th- and 16th- century Italy, and possibly two millennia ago—women were dying their hair blond. A recent study shows that in Iran, where exposure to Western media and culture is limited, women are actually more concerned with their body image, and want to lose more weight, than their American counterparts. It is difficult to ascribe the preferences and desires of women in 15th-century Italy and 21st-century Iran to socialization by media.

Women's desire to look like Barbie—young with small waist, large breasts, long blond hair, and blue eyes—is a direct, realistic, and sensible response to the desire of men to mate with women who look like her. There is evolutionary logic behind each of these features.

Men prefer young women in part because they tend to be healthier than older women. One accurate indicator of health is physical attractiveness; another is hair. Healthy women have lustrous, shiny hair, whereas the hair of sickly people loses its luster. Because hair grows slowly, shoulder-length hair reveals several years of a woman's health status.

Men also have a universal preference for women with a low waist-to-hip ratio. They are healthier and more fertile than other women; they have an easier time conceiving a child and do so at earlier ages because they have larger amounts of essential reproductive hormones. Thus men are unconsciously seeking healthier and more fertile women when they seek women with small waists.

Until very recently, it was a mystery to evolutionary psychology why men prefer women with large breasts, since the size of a woman's breasts has no relationship to her ability to lactate. But Harvard anthropologist Frank Marlowe contends that larger, and hence heavier, breasts sag more conspicuously with age than do smaller breasts. Thus they make it easier for men to judge a woman's age (and her reproductive value) by sight—suggesting why men find women with large breasts more attractive.

Alternatively, men may prefer women with large breasts for the same reason they prefer women with small waists. A new study of Polish women shows that women with large breasts and tight waists have the greatest fecundity, indicated by their levels of two reproductive hormones (estradiol and progesterone).

Blond hair is unique in that it changes dramatically with age. Typically, young girls with light blond hair become women with brown hair. Thus, men who prefer to mate with blond women are unconsciously attempting to mate with younger (and hence, on average, healthier and more fecund) women. It is no coincidence that blond hair evolved in Scandinavia and northern Europe, probably as an alternative means for women to advertise their youth, as their bodies were concealed under heavy clothing.

Women with blue eyes should not be any different from those with green or brown eyes. Yet preference for blue eyes seems both universal and undeniable—in males as well as females. One explanation is that the human pupil dilates when an individual is exposed to something that she likes. For instance, the pupils of women and infants (but not men) spontaneously dilate when they see babies. Pupil dilation is an honest indicator of interest and attraction. And the size of the pupil is easiest to determine in blue eyes. Blue-eyed people are considered attractive as potential mates because it is easiest to determine whether they are interested in us or not.

The irony is that none of the above is true any longer. Through face-lifts, wigs, liposuction, surgical breast augmentation, hair dye, and color contact lenses, any woman, regardless of age, can have many of the key features that define ideal female beauty. And men fall for them. Men can cognitively understand that many blond women with firm, large breasts are not actually 15 years old, but they still find them attractive because their evolved psychological mechanisms are fooled by modern inventions that did not exist in the ancestral environment.
Humans are naturally polygamous
The history of western civilization aside, humans are naturally polygamous. Polyandry (a marriage of one woman to many men) is very rare, but polygyny (the marriage of one man to many women) is widely practiced in human societies, even though Judeo-Christian traditions hold that monogamy is the only natural form of marriage. We know that humans have been polygynous throughout most of history because men are taller than women.

Among primate and nonprimate species, the degree of polygyny highly correlates with the degree to which males of a species are larger than females. The more polygynous the species, the greater the size disparity between the sexes. Typically, human males are 10 percent taller and 20 percent heavier than females. This suggests that, throughout history, humans have been mildly polygynous.

Relative to monogamy, polygyny creates greater fitness variance (the distance between the "winners" and the "losers" in the reproductive game) among males than among females because it allows a few males to monopolize all the females in the group. The greater fitness variance among males creates greater pressure for men to compete with each other for mates. Only big and tall males can win mating opportunities. Among pair-bonding species like humans, in which males and females stay together to raise their children, females also prefer to mate with big and tall males because they can provide better physical protection against predators and other males.

In societies where rich men are much richer than poor men, women (and their children) are better off sharing the few wealthy men; one-half, one-quarter, or even one-tenth of a wealthy man is still better than an entire poor man. As George Bernard Shaw puts it, "The maternal instinct leads a woman to prefer a tenth share in a first-rate man to the exclusive possession of a third-rate one." Despite the fact that humans are naturally polygynous, most industrial societies are monogamous because men tend to be more or less equal in their resources compared with their ancestors in medieval times. (Inequality tends to increase as society advances in complexity from hunter-gatherer to advanced agrarian societies. Industrialization tends to decrease the level of inequality.)
Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy
When there is resource inequality among men—the case in every human society—most women benefit from polygyny: women can share a wealthy man. Under monogamy, they are stuck with marrying a poorer man.

The only exceptions are extremely desirable women. Under monogamy, they can monopolize the wealthiest men; under polygyny, they must share the men with other, less desirable women. However, the situation is exactly opposite for men. Monogamy guarantees that every man can find a wife. True, less desirable men can marry only less desirable women, but that's much better than not marrying anyone at all.

Men in monogamous societies imagine they would be better off under polygyny. What they don't realize is that, for most men who are not extremely desirable, polygyny means no wife at all, or, if they are lucky, a wife who is much less desirable than one they could get under monogamy.
Most suicide bombers are Muslim
According to the Oxford University sociologist Diego Gambetta, editor of Making Sense of Suicide Missions, a comprehensive history of this troubling yet topical phenomenon, while suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, when religion is involved, it is always Muslim. Why is this? Why is Islam the only religion that motivates its followers to commit suicide missions?

The surprising answer from the evolutionary psychological perspective is that Muslim suicide bombing may have nothing to do with Islam or the Koran (except for two lines in it). It may have nothing to do with the religion, politics, the culture, the race, the ethnicity, the language, or the region. As with everything else from this perspective, it may have a lot to do with sex, or, in this case, the absence of sex.

What distinguishes Islam from other major religions is that it tolerates polygyny. By allowing some men to monopolize all women and altogether excluding many men from reproductive opportunities, polygyny creates shortages of available women. If 50 percent of men have two wives each, then the other 50 percent don't get any wives at all.

So polygyny increases competitive pressure on men, especially young men of low status. It therefore increases the likelihood that young men resort to violent means to gain access to mates. By doing so, they have little to lose and much to gain compared with men who already have wives. Across all societies, polygyny makes men violent, increasing crimes such as murder and rape, even after controlling for such obvious factors as economic development, economic inequality, population density, the level of democracy, and political factors in the region.

However, polygyny itself is not a sufficient cause of suicide bombing. Societies in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean are much more polygynous than the Muslim nations in the Middle East and North Africa. And they do have very high levels of violence. Sub-Saharan Africa suffers from a long history of continuous civil wars—but not suicide bombings.

The other key ingredient is the promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in Islam. The prospect of exclusive access to virgins may not be so appealing to anyone who has even one mate on earth, which strict monogamy virtually guarantees. However, the prospect is quite appealing to anyone who faces the bleak reality on earth of being a complete reproductive loser.

It is the combination of polygyny and the promise of a large harem of virgins in heaven that motivates many young Muslim men to commit suicide bombings. Consistent with this explanation, all studies of suicide bombers indicate that they are significantly younger than not only the Muslim population in general but other (nonsuicidal) members of their own extreme political organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. And nearly all suicide bombers are single.
Having sons reduces the likelihood of divorce
Sociologists and demographers have discovered that couples who have at least one son face significantly less risk of divorce than couples who have only daughters. Why is this?

Since a man's mate value is largely determined by his wealth, status, and power—whereas a woman's is largely determined by her youth and physical attractiveness—the father has to make sure that his son will inherit his wealth, status, and power, regardless of how much or how little of these resources he has. In contrast, there is relatively little that a father (or mother) can do to keep a daughter youthful or make her more physically attractive.

The continued presence of (and investment by) the father is therefore important for the son, but not as crucial for the daughter. The presence of sons thus deters divorce and departure of the father from the family more than the presence of daughters, and this effect tends to be stronger among wealthy families.
Beautiful people have more daughters
It is commonly believed that whether parents conceive a boy or a girl is up to random chance. Close, but not quite; it is largely up to chance. The normal sex ratio at birth is 105 boys for every 100 girls. But the sex ratio varies slightly in different circumstances and for different families. There are factors that subtly influence the sex of an offspring.

One of the most celebrated principles in evolutionary biology, the Trivers-Willard hypothesis, states that wealthy parents of high status have more sons, while poor parents of low status have more daughters. This is because children generally inherit the wealth and social status of their parents. Throughout history, sons from wealthy families who would themselves become wealthy could expect to have a large number of wives, mistresses and concubines, and produce dozens or hundreds of children, whereas their equally wealthy sisters can have only so many children. So natural selection designs parents to have biased sex ratio at birth depending upon their economic circumstances—more boys if they are wealthy, more girls if they are poor. (The biological mechanism by which this occurs is not yet understood.)

This hypothesis has been documented around the globe. American presidents, vice presidents, and cabinet secretaries have more sons than daughters. Poor Mukogodo herders in East Africa have more daughters than sons. Church parish records from the 17th and 18th centuries show that wealthy landowners in Leezen, Germany, had more sons than daughters, while farm laborers and tradesmen without property had more daughters than sons. In a survey of respondents from 46 nations, wealthy individuals are more likely to indicate a preference for sons if they could only have one child, whereas less wealthy individuals are more likely to indicate a preference for daughters.

The generalized Trivers-Willard hypothesis goes beyond a family's wealth and status: If parents have any traits that they can pass on to their children and that are better for sons than for daughters, then they will have more boys. Conversely, if parents have any traits that they can pass on to their children and that are better for daughters, they will have more girls.

Physical attractiveness, while a universally positive quality, contributes even more to women's reproductive success than to men's. The generalized hypothesis would therefore predict that physically attractive parents should have more daughters than sons. Once again, this is the case. Americans who are rated "very attractive" have a 56 percent chance of having a daughter for their first child, compared with 48 percent for everyone else.
What Bill Gates and Paul McCartney have in common with criminals
For nearly a quarter of a century, criminologists have known about the "age-crime curve." In every society at all historical times, the tendency to commit crimes and other risk-taking behavior rapidly increases in early adolescence, peaks in late adolescence and early adulthood, rapidly decreases throughout the 20s and 30s, and levels off in middle age.

This curve is not limited to crime. The same age profile characterizes every quantifiable human behavior that is public (i.e., perceived by many potential mates) and costly (i.e., not affordable by all sexual competitors). The relationship between age and productivity among male jazz musicians, male painters, male writers, and male scientists—which might be called the "age-genius curve"—is essentially the same as the age-crime curve. Their productivity—the expressions of their genius—quickly peaks in early adulthood, and then equally quickly declines throughout adulthood. The age-genius curve among their female counterparts is much less pronounced; it does not peak or vary as much as a function of age.

Paul McCartney has not written a hit song in years, and now spends much of his time painting. Bill Gates is now a respectable businessman and philanthropist, and is no longer a computer whiz kid. J.D. Salinger now lives as a total recluse and has not published anything in more than three decades. Orson Welles was a mere 26 when he wrote, produced, directed, and starred in Citizen Kane.

A single theory can explain the productivity of both creative geniuses and criminals over the life course: Both crime and genius are expressions of young men's competitive desires, whose ultimate function in the ancestral environment would have been to increase reproductive success.

In the physical competition for mates, those who are competitive may act violently toward their male rivals. Men who are less inclined toward crime and violence may express their competitiveness through their creative activities.

The cost of competition, however, rises dramatically when a man has children, when his energies and resources are put to better use protecting and investing in them. The birth of the first child usually occurs several years after puberty because men need some time to accumulate sufficient resources and attain sufficient status to attract their first mate. There is therefore a gap of several years between the rapid rise in the benefits of competition and similarly rapid rise in its costs. Productivity rapidly declines in late adulthood as the costs of competition rise and cancel its benefits.

These calculations have been performed by natural and sexual selection, so to speak, which then equips male brains with a psychological mechanism to incline them to be increasingly competitive immediately after puberty and make them less competitive right after the birth of their first child. Men simply do not feel like acting violently, stealing, or conducting additional scientific experiments, or they just want to settle down after the birth of their child but they do not know exactly why.

The similarity between Bill Gates, Paul McCartney, and criminals—in fact, among all men throughout evolutionary history—points to an important concept in evolutionary biology: female choice.

Women often say no to men. Men have had to conquer foreign lands, win battles and wars, compose symphonies, author books, write sonnets, paint cathedral ceilings, make scientific discoveries, play in rock bands, and write new computer software in order to impress women so that they will agree to have sex with them. Men have built (and destroyed) civilization in order to impress women, so that they might say yes.
The midlife crisis is a myth—sort of
Many believe that men go through a midlife crisis when they are in middle age. Not quite. Many middle-aged men do go through midlife crises, but it's not because they are middle-aged. It's because their wives are. From the evolutionary psychological perspective, a man's midlife crisis is precipitated by his wife's imminent menopause and end of her reproductive career, and thus his renewed need to attract younger women. Accordingly, a 50-year-old man married to a 25-year-old woman would not go through a midlife crisis, while a 25-year-old man married to a 50-year-old woman would, just like a more typical 50-year-old man married to a 50-year-old woman. It's not his midlife that matters; it's hers. When he buys a shiny-red sports car, he's not trying to regain his youth; he's trying to attract young women to replace his menopausal wife by trumpeting his flash and cash.
It's natural for politicians to risk everything for an affair (but only if they're male)
On the morning of January 21, 1998, as Americans woke up to the stunning allegation that President Bill Clinton had had an affair with a 24-year-old White House intern, Darwinian historian Laura L. Betzig thought, "I told you so." Betzig points out that while powerful men throughout Western history have married monogamously (only one legal wife at a time), they have always mated polygynously (they had lovers, concubines, and female slaves). With their wives, they produced legitimate heirs; with the others, they produced bastards. Genes make no distinction between the two categories of children.

As a result, powerful men of high status throughout human history attained very high reproductive success, leaving a large number of offspring (legitimate and otherwise), while countless poor men died mateless and childless. Moulay Ismail the Bloodthirsty, the last Sharifian emperor of Morocco, stands out quantitatively, having left more offspring—1,042—than anyone else on record, but he was by no means qualitatively different from other powerful men, like Bill Clinton.

The question many asked in 1998—"Why on earth would the most powerful man in the world jeopardize his job for an affair with a young woman?"—is, from a Darwinian perspective, a silly one. Betzig's answer would be: "Why not?" Men strive to attain political power, consciously or unconsciously, in order to have reproductive access to a larger number of women. Reproductive access to women is the goal, political office but one means. To ask why the President of the United States would have a sexual encounter with a young woman is like asking why someone who worked very hard to earn a large sum of money would then spend it.

What distinguishes Bill Clinton is not that he had extramarital affairs while in office—others have, more will; it would be a Darwinian puzzle if they did not—what distinguishes him is the fact that he got caught.
Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist
An unfortunate consequence of the ever-growing number of women joining the labor force and working side by side with men is the increasing number of sexual harassment cases. Why must sexual harassment be a necessary consequence of the sexual integration of the workplace?

Psychologist Kingsley R. Browne identifies two types of sexual harassment cases: the quid pro quo ("You must sleep with me if you want to keep your job or be promoted") and the "hostile environment" (the workplace is deemed too sexualized for workers to feel safe and comfortable). While feminists and social scientists tend to explain sexual harassment in terms of "patriarchy" and other ideologies, Browne locates the ultimate cause of both types of sexual harassment in sex differences in mating strategies.

Studies demonstrate unequivocally that men are far more interested in short-term casual sex than women. In one now-classic study, 75 percent of undergraduate men approached by an attractive female stranger agreed to have sex with her; none of the women approached by an attractive male stranger did. Many men who would not date the stranger nonetheless agreed to have sex with her.

The quid pro quo types of harassment are manifestations of men's greater desire for short-term casual sex and their willingness to use any available means to achieve that goal. Feminists often claim that sexual harassment is "not about sex but about power;" Browne contends it is both—men using power to get sex. "To say that it is only about power makes no more sense than saying that bank robbery is only about guns, not about money."

Sexual harassment cases of the hostile-environment variety result from sex differences in what men and women perceive as "overly sexual" or "hostile" behavior. Many women legitimately complain that they have been subjected to abusive, intimidating, and degrading treatment by their male coworkers. Browne points out that long before women entered the labor force, men subjected each other to such abusive, intimidating, and degrading treatment.

Abuse, intimidation, and degradation are all part of men's repertoire of tactics employed in competitive situations. In other words, men are not treating women differently from men—the definition of discrimination, under which sexual harassment legally falls—but the opposite: Men harass women precisely because they are not discriminating between men and women.

Source URL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/24014

2010-11-12T18:18:00.001+01:00

Proverb 14: The Marriage Zone

Posted on September 21, 2010 by Solomon II

Most men – average men – can only begin enjoying life at age 29 the way women do at age 19 because it takes them that long to gain the resources women find attractive. The point in life where men’s and women’s access intersect is the marriage zone. She has to get him to commit in that zone before he realizes that his life is really just starting. My recommendation: she’s enjoyed her “wild and free” days, so avoid marriage and go enjoy yours. Travel. Sex up a variety of women. Explore your hobby now that you have both the time and resources to do so. In short, live life with the access of a carefree 19 year old party girl.

The Chart:

Ages 15 to 19: The chart starts at age 15. Here women are at an access level of 8, which means they can pretty much do whatever they want whenever they want. By the time she’s 19 and has a fake ID, she soars up to a 10 which means the world is her oyster. Your average man in this same category is lucky if he gets a blowjob from the ugly chick in 2nd period, and feels truly fortunate if he can keep a steady girlfriend and get laid on a semi regular basis.

Ages 20 to 25: Women are at their peak during most of this time, and even though their access starts to decline, it declines only because they themselves are being more selective while staging for marriage. Men during this time are steadily learning how to deal with women and are increasing their earning potential, so things are getting slowly better. Still, they haven’t reached the level of access that their female counterparts have enjoyed since age 15.

Age 26 to 28: This is the start of the marriage zone. Women’s clocks are ticking, and men have finally turned a job into a career. Though women’s access is still at a very high 8, she notices the men around her have more choices. They’ve reached an access level of 7 and are steadily rising. Though she gets roughly the same amount of attention from men that she used to, she notices the men are far less likely to catch oneitis in her presence. Men are getting smarter and they have more options because of their increased access. She has to get him to commit as soon as possible before he realizes just how numerous his options really are.

Age 29 to 30: This is a superb time for men to be alive. The tables have now turned. She’s finally learned that while finding dick takes very little effort, finding *committed* dick isn’t as easy as she was told it would be. Even though she screwed up in the marriage zone and wasn’t able to secure a partner, she’s going to stay on the prowl and be “in it to win it”.

Age 31 and up: As her sexual and marriage market value slowly decreases, so does her access to committed dick. Meanwhile, the men who were smart enough to avoid her in the marriage zone have a long and happy life ahead of them. Even at age 40 – if they are successful and have stayed in shape – these men can find a 28 year old woman to bear their children if they want. The men have nothing to lose. The women continue to slowly decline until they settle for a beta or convince themselves that being a career woman in Cougarville was really what they wanted all along.

After men avoid the marriage zone, their access soars. They can enjoy a series of fulfilling monogamous relationships with women who are on their best behavior since they’re desperately trying to get married, and fill in the time in between these relationships by banging easy targets such as single mothers, divorcees, and rabid feminists who are second-guessing their decisions.

So gentlemen, stay in shape. Focus on your career, build a stable financial portfolio, and keep your access soaring. If you absolutely must have a child, do it in your late 30’s or early 40’s with a hot little number in her 20’s. It can happen. If you’re like me and children aren’t in your future, the possibilities are endless.

Avoid the marriage zone!

2010-11-12T17:54:00.003+01:00

Proverb 6: The Grizzly Bear Rule

Posted on August 30, 2010 by Solomon II

You do not owe a traditional wedding to any woman who cannot give you a traditional honeymoon.

Each and every day I commit a social crime. I have the audacity to be a 31 year old healthy man with a good job, a modest condo in the financial district, an Infinity G convertible and a desirable debt-to-income ratio. The crime? I had dated the same 28 year old woman for nearly 11 months and hadn’t shown any signs of being ready to “take the next step”.

The Femcops were hot on my trail, too. I had to hear about it from my mother, both of my sisters, my female coworkers, the princess herself, and many of her friends.

Now I wouldn’t have taken so much offense to this scenario if it were framed differently. If my girlfriend simply “wanted” to take the next step, that would be one thing. I still wouldn’t have done it, but I would have understood. Instead, she and her troop of Femcops insisted she “deserved” it and that I owed it to her since she was the greatest thing since sliced bread and I’d been awarded the pleasure of her company. Of course scores of other men had known the pleasure of her company for as little as three shots of tequila and two Miller Lites – but in recent months she’d upped her asking price to compensate for her biological clock.

Her entitlement monkey got a karmic kick to the balls.

We all know what traditional marriage means in a post agricultural world. It means that in order to ensure the son who inherits your land is really your offspring, women offer you a clean, dedicated womb to impregnate. In exchange for her contribution, you make sure she doesn’t starve to death or get carried away by a grizzly bear.

Kind of outdated huh? I agree. With the advent of the pill, condoms, and DNA testing, a man can reasonably assume that he is the father of a child even if his woman has been with three dozen men before him. In addition, we also don’t grow our own food anymore, so having a large family to work the farm isn’t of any real importance.

Marriage has outlived its usefulness, yet many women demand it in order to continue having sex with a man. They want it, need it, and fantasize about it to the extent that they can only feel loved, needed and sexually fulfilled when marriage – or the promise thereof – is present.

In essence, marriage is a fetish.

So the next time some broad shames you for not honoring the tradition of marriage, feel free to shame her for not honoring the tradition of chastity. If she comes back at you with the usual “you’re not a virgin either” argument, simply remind her that virginity is not part of the traditional bargain for men. Tell her to come back when she’s a virgin and you’ll marry her and protect her from grizzly bears.

SUGGESTED READING: Don’t Get Married by Chateau

2010-11-11T08:59:00.000+01:00

13 Thesen zur Frauenemanzipation

Quelle: Forum www.wgvdl.com

1. Emanzipierte Frauen betrachten sich in erster Linie als menschliche Individuen und definieren sich nicht über ihre Geschlechtsorgane.

2. Emanzipierte Frauen sind bereit und imstande, ihren Lebensunterhalt selbst zu verdienen und lehnen es in dieser Hinsicht ab, von einem Mann abhängig zu sein, sei es als Heimchen am Herd, sei es als Unterhaltsschmarotzerin.

3. Emanzipierte Frauen sind bereit, sich beruflich, und zwar auch und gerade in "Männerberufen", denselben Anforderungen zu stellen wie ihre männlichen Kollegen und lehnen jede geschlechtsspezifische Vorzugsbehandlung ab.

4. Emanzipierte Frauen sind, wenn sie Karriere machen wollen, bereit, diese Karriere auf Leistung aufzubauen und betrachten das Ansinnen, als Quotenfrau befördert zu werden, als kaum weniger beleidigend, wie das Ansinnen, sich nach oben zu poppen.

5. Emanzipierte Frauen sind imstande, wenn ihnen was nicht passt oder sie sich ungerecht behandelt fühlen, selber den Mund aufzumachen und sich zu wehren und brauchen dafür keine Frauen- oder Gleichstellungsbeauftragten und dergleichen. Sie sehen es im Gegenteil als beleidigend an, dass durch die Schaffung solcher Einrichtungen "Frau sein" in gewisser Hinsicht mit "behindert sein" gleichgesetzt wird.

6. Emanzipierte Frauen sind bereit, wenn ihnen etwas misslingt, die Ursache hierfür auch bei sich selber zu suchen und schieben nicht sofort alle Schuld an ihrer persönlichen Misere pauschal auf "die Männer" oder "das Patriarchat".

7. Emanzipierte Frauen lehnen es ab, dusseliges Versagen oder niederträchtige Sauereien in menschheitsbeglückende Wohltaten umzulügen, nur weil sie von einer Frau begangen wurden.

8. Emanzipierte Frauen richten ihre Entscheidungen zur Stimmabgabe bei Parlamentswahlen an den politischen Inhalten aus, für die die Kandidaten stehen, und nicht an deren Geschlechtsorganen. In diesem Sinne ist für sie der "Frauenanteil" in Parteien und Parlamenten ebenso bedeutungslos wie der Anteil an Linkshändern oder Brillenträgern.

9. Emanzipierte Frauen benutzen keine hohlen anbiedernden Floskeln wie "ich als Frau finde, dass..." oder "wir Frauen müssen/können/sollten..."

10. Emanzipierte Frauen betrachten das generische Maskulinum als Mittel zur Sprachvereinfachung und nicht als Resultat einer finsteren Männerverschwörung zur Frauenunterdrückung.

11. Emanzipierte Frauen gestalten ihr Sexualleben nach ihren individuellen Wünschen und Bedürfnissen und lassen sich nicht vorschreiben, welche Sexualpraktiken sie als "frauenverachtend" oder "frauenunterdrückend" abzulehnen hätten.

12. Emanzipierte Frauen fühlen sich nicht gleich sexuell belästigt, wenn ihnen jemand Komplimente über ihr Äußeres macht oder ihnen bewundernde Blicke zuwirft.

13. Emanzipierte Frauen bevorzugen gleichberechtigt-partnerschaftliche Männer und lehnen unterwürfige Mösenkriecher ebenso ab, wie großmäulige aufgeblasene Machos.

Fazit: Emanzipierte Frauen sind das Gegenteil von Feministinnen.

Feminism Is A Business

2010-10-25T08:03:00.000+01:00

Feminism Is A Business

Feminism is the idea that women should be treated like children.

Didn’t accomplish anything this time around, sweetheart? That’s okay. Give it another shot after we bend the fuck out of the rules.

Scratch that. Feminism is the idea that women should be treated like spoiled children — who get do-overs and freebies until they’re chucking batteries at homeless people out the sunroof of their father’s BMW.

Well-raised kids get stuck with Dick Soup if that’s what they ordered. Do-overs are not a part of man-parenting. Do-overs are for ladies.

Feminism is the idea that women shouldn’t consider themselves happy unless they enjoy the same things men do — and that they should enjoy them at ten times the volume. Have you ever seen a woman pretend to like business or sports? If you have, then you’ve seen the very definition of an overcompensating attention whore. There isn’t a big screen on Earth that can drown out the “mating hoots” of a woman who’s convinced herself she likes basketball.

Professional athletes thrive on the respect and worship of men like they were Greek gods. A respect that is so inherent to Sport it cannot even be understood without a penis. Ladies, unless they’re on top of you, you don’t mean shit to professional athletes. You’re embarrassing yourselves with this unwanted fandom.

The idea of convincing someone to enjoy something more than they would otherwise might sound familiar to you. It’s called “marketing”.

You like beer…but do you like Coors Light? You should.

Personally, I don’t like Coors Light. I enjoy Boddingtons, Smithwick’s, Tecate, John Smith, Guinness, Imperial, MGD, and nearly any microbrew over 10% abv. But there are thousands of men out there who pay their mortgage every month just trying to convince me to add Coors to that list.

Carl’s Jr: Fuck you, I’m eating.

Feminism is powered by women who eat and feed themselves and their dozens of worthless cats with money made by maintaining and promoting the infernal machine that is feminism.

There are women out there who make their living convincing young women to play sports. Otherwise, they lose their budget.

Without feminism, Women’s Studies “professors” and ten thousand of the ugliest bitches on Earth would have to learn how to fuck properly in order to put a roof over their heads. Because what does life spent promoting women’s issues prepare you for? It’s technically not “marketing” because these dozy broads buy it by the trough. That makes it a cult.

Feminism: the Cult of Do-Overs

Even if you swallow all the bullshit, “equality” is a task that has an end. However, if feminism ever achieves this imaginary task, thousands of know-nothing, over-educated bitches will be out of a job faster than their cats will resort to eating one another to stay alive in the real world. Feminism isn’t about achieving anything. It’s about staying in business.

Feminism is about creating more feminist problems.

If Richard Jewell had actually planted that bomb at the 96 Summer Olympics and then called it in so he would look like a hero — like Janet Reno said he did — feminism would be Richard Jewell.

I bet they don’t even offer an introductory course on carpet munching in Women’s Studies. As far as I see it, pretending you’re half “lesbian” is the first requirement to being a feminist.

Men love working our asses off. Men love stacking up our accomplishments and shoving them in everyone’s face — or sometimes not shoving them in everyone’s face, but still making sure that everyone knows they could be shoved in their face at any moment. That’s called “being the bigger man”. And that’s also something women can’t do. Men love partying, going out with our man-friends, and most importantly, sleeping around.

Women don’t.

Women like getting shit for free based on their looks, and as long as feminism doesn’t teach that, it’s a scam and a con and a cult. A cult of do-overs.

If you’re one of these Daddy’s Little Princesses who thinks I’m full of shit because I’m teaching some manly analogue to feminism, go fuck yourself. I don’t care if men don’t agree with me. I don’t give a fuck if anyone agrees with me.

I’ll make you guys a deal. If any of you don’t agree with me, go get a job in an office and get married to the sweetest, most caring, least likely to be a bitch in seven years while having at least two guys on the side that she secretly chats with on MySpace up until then, and then come see me in ten years with your opinion unchanged.

You’ll be back, but it won’t be to gloat.

I’ll be fucking feminism all week. It’ll be fun. Like fucking a girl with self-esteem so low she can’t tell the difference between love and not getting spit on.

2010-10-19T17:16:00.001+01:00

Walter Hollstein

Der entwertete Mann

Was entwertet werden kann, muss logischerweise einmal Wert besessen haben. Das gilt für die Inflation des Geldes ebenso wie für jene von Mann und Männlichkeit.

Der Mann galt über lange Jahrhunderte als Schöpfer von Zivilisation und Kultur; er war verantwortlich für Schutz und Fortbestand des Gemeinwesens. In Joseph Haydns Oratorium Die Schöpfung heißt es: »Mit Würd’ und Hoheit angetan, / Mit Schönheit, Stärk’ und Mut begabt, / Gen Himmel aufgerichtet steht der Mensch, / Ein Mann und König der Natur.« Manchmal sind solche Bilder mit der androzentrischen Gefahr verbunden, das eigene Geschlecht zu idealisieren und dementsprechend das andere abzuwerten; zumeist sind sie aber durchaus altruistisch. »Der brave Mann denkt an sich selbst zuletzt«, heißt es im Wilhelm Tell. Beethoven spricht mit Schillers Ode an die Freude vom »Männerstolz vor Königsthronen« und meint das mutige männliche Einstehen für Freiheit und Selbstbestimmung. Apostelgeschichte 13, Vers 22, fordert den »Mann nach dem Herzen Gottes«, und das impliziert Güte, Verantwortung und die Fürsorge für den Nächsten. Große Epen von Homers Odysseus über Wolfram von Eschenbachs Parzival bis zu Goethes Wilhelm Meister beschreiben die schwierige männliche Initiation von einem individualistischen Ausgangspunkt zu einer allgemein-menschlichen Verantwortung.

Der große Berliner Soziologe Georg Simmel hat in seinem Aufsatz Weibliche Kultur zu einer Zeit angemerkt, da es noch keine Männerforschung gab, »unsere Kultur ist, mit Ausnahme ganz weniger Provinzen, durchaus männlich. Männer haben die Industrie und die Kunst, die Wissenschaft und den Handel, die Staatsverwaltung und die Religion geschaffen, und so tragen diese nicht nur objektiv männlichen Charakter, sondern verlangen auch zu ihrer immer wiederholten Ausführung specifisch männliche Kräfte.«

Albert Camus beschreibt in seinem Roman Die Pest, wie in den vierziger Jahren des vergangenen Jahrhunderts eine furchtbare Seuche in der nordafrikanischen Stadt Oran ausbricht. Die Pest ergreift die Stadt totalitär und schneidet sie auch bald von der Außenwelt ab. Angesichts der Epidemie sehen sich mehrere der ausschließlich männlichen Hauptpersonen des Romans vor der existentiellen Alternative von Flucht oder Kampf. Diejenigen, die sich dafür entscheiden, der Pest Widerstand zu leisten, riskieren ihr Leben, ihre Liebesbeziehungen und ihre Zukunft zugunsten des kollektiven Wertes der Rettung menschlicher Ordnung, Kultur und Gemeinschaft.

In diesem Roman wird das männliche Prinzip noch einmal plastisch zusammengefasst in den Qualitäten von Mut, Fürsorge, Willenskraft, Verantwortung, Güte, Risikobereitschaft, Nachsicht, Grenzüberschreitung, Verzicht, Altruismus, Ritterlichkeit, Ehrlichkeit und Bescheidenheit in Form der Zurückstellung eigener Bedürfnisse. Gleiches wird in der Weltliteratur Männern immer wieder zugewiesen, ob es nun in Joseph Conrads Taifun um den männlichen Kampf gegen die Naturgewalten geht oder in Ernest Hemingways Roman Wem die Stunde schlägt um die heroischen Bemühungen gegen den Faschismus im Spanischen Bürgerkrieg. Dabei finden sich im männlichen Prinzip durchaus auch Eigenschaften, die im modernen Diskurs eher Frauen zugeschrieben werden, wie zum Beispiel Fürsorge, Güte oder Verzicht. Die Gewichtung kann variieren, wie historische Darstellungen von Männlichkeit belegen. E. Anthony Rotundo zum Beispiel zeichnet in seiner Geschichte der Männlichkeit American Manhood nach, wie entsprechend den ökonomischen und politischen Bedingungen vom Mann eher »weiche« oder eher »harte« Qualitäten erwartet wurden.

Der Bruch mit diesem Bild wird registriert zu Beginn der siebziger Jahre, als der Feminismus – vor allem in seiner vulgären Ausdrucksform – beim Kampf gegen das Patriarchat auch das männliche Subjekt gnadenlos zerlegte und die Dichotomie zwischen männlichen Tätern und weiblichen Opfern begründete. Dabei kann man für den deutschsprachigen Raum zwei große Phasen unterscheiden. In der ersten wurden Männer als Verbrecher, Vergewaltiger und Missbraucher »demaskiert«, in der zweiten vornehmlich als Versager und Trottel vorgestellt. Dieser tiefgreifende Wandel im Männerbild unserer Kultur ist im deutschsprachigen Raum bisher weder zureichend wahrgenommen noch thematisiert worden – ganz im Gegensatz zu vielfältigen Arbeiten über das Frauenbild der Medien. Misogynie und Frauenfeindlichkeit sind seit langem anerkannte Themen, für die die Öffentlichkeit stets aufs Neue sensibilisiert wird; für Misandrie und Männerfeindlichkeit gilt das hingegen nicht.

Die dramatische Entwertung der Männlichkeit wird man dem Feminismus aber nur in seiner ideologischen Komponente anlasten können. Lange vor der ersten und zweiten Frauenbewegung hatte schon eine gesellschaftliche Entwertung von Männlichkeit eingesetzt. Dieser Prozess ist insofern verborgen geblieben, weil sich die Patriarchatsforschung mit Ausschließlichkeit auf das konzentriert hat, was Männer Frauen angetan haben. Das gilt für feministische Darstellungen ebenso wie für jene der profeministischen Männerforschung. Will man Entwicklungen nachzeichnen, wie Männer im Laufe der modernen Geschichte um viele ihrer Qualitäten enteignet worden sind, muss man sich auf Forschungsarbeiten abseits des Mainstream stützen.

In dem Sammelband amerikanischer Psychiater Men in Transition (1982) notiert zum Beispiel Wolfgang Lederer: »Es war die Maschine, die die Männer eines der wenigen natürlichen Vorteile über die Frau beraubte, ihrer größeren körperlichen Kraft. Es braucht einen starken Mann, um Land zu roden und eine gerade Furche zu pflügen; dagegen ist ein weiblicher Teenager in der Lage, einen Traktor zu fahren.« Der Mann ist zum Anhängsel seiner eigenen Erfindungen geworden und hat sich so seiner Kraft, Autonomie und Kreativität enteignet.

Die Technik hat auch den männlichen Körper beeinflusst und umgestaltet. Vor allem die frühe emanzipatorische Männerbewegung hat die Techni sierung der männlichen Sexualität beklagt: In einem der ersten Männer-Manifeste erregte sich Volker Elis Pilgrim darüber, dass das Patriarchat auch den Mann kaputtgemacht habe, indem es seine Sexualität in die Technologie einverlangt und das männliche Glied zu Mondraketen und anderen technischen Leistungen erigieren ließ. Auf eine andere Entwicklung hat Karl Marx im Kapital aufmerksam gemacht. Dort beschreibt er anhand zeitgenössischer Dokumente, mit wie viel Gewalt, Brutalität und Unrecht eine kleine Gruppe englischer Großgrundbesitzer die »Expropriation des Landvolks von Grund und Boden« durchsetzte und die derart Vertriebenen dann in den Städten mit noch einmal so viel Gewalt, Brutalität und Unrecht in das entstehende Heer der Industriearbeiter eingliederte.

Michel Foucault spricht in diesem Zusammenhang von der »Disziplinargesellschaft«. Damit ist gemeint, dass jene Männer, die bislang als Kleinbauern, Pächter oder Landarbeiter den Rhythmus ihrer Arbeits- und Lebensführung weithin selber eingerichtet hatten, nun an das Diktat maschineller Regelmäßigkeit gewöhnt werden mussten. Das bedeutet: Zeitplanung nach fremdgesetzten Erwartungen, Körperbeherrschung, die von der Eigengesetzlichkeit der Maschinentechnik kodiert wird; Fabrikordnung, die die persönliche Freiheit aufhebt, außerdem die Trennung von Lebens- und Arbeitsort – mit allen Folgen, die daraus für die Geschlechterbeziehungen und die Kindererziehung entstehen. Wer sich in diese »Disziplinargesellschaft« als Mann nicht fügt, wird in eigens geschaffenen Arbeitshäusern, Zuchtanstalten und Gefängnissen auf die neue Ordnung gedrillt.

Synchron zur industriellen Disziplinargesellschaft entwickelt sich in dieser Epoche auch eine politisch-administrative. Die größeren Menschenmassen, die die Industrie nun an bestimmten Orten zu konzentrieren beginnt, müssen kontrolliert und verwaltet werden. Das übernimmt außerhalb der Fabrik die neue Bürokratie. Beide haben das gleiche Ziel der Eingliederung des Mannes in einen Lebensrahmen, den er fortan nicht mehr selber bestimmt. Die Bürokratieanalysen von Max Weber über Franz Neumann bis zu Henry Jacoby verweisen auf die gemeinsame rechenhafte und rationale Herrschaftsausübung beider Gebilde. Der Durchschnittsmann wird zum kalkulierbaren Produktions- und Verwaltungsfaktor. Die Disziplinargesellschaft setzt normativ die Funktionalität des Verhaltens unter die sachlichen Erfordernisse des Apparats. Günther Anders hat dieses Thema in seinem Buch Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen aufgenommen.

Die männliche Subordination bleibt nicht folgenlos. So ziehen sich Moral und Ethik, die bis dahin an die persönliche Verantwortung des Einzelnen gebunden waren, vom Individuum zurück und abstrahieren sich in anonymen Organisationen. Der Mann ist nun nicht mehr Mensch und Subjekt, sondern, auf unterschiedlichen Ebenen, Experte und Funktionär. Der Stuttgarter Psychiater Joachim Bodamer ist in den fünfziger Jahren vor allem diesem Zusammenhang der Verantwortungsohnmacht nachgegangen und hat dabei den »Mann von heute einen Virtuosen der Verantwortungslosigkeit« genannt – auch Bodamer korreliert diese Selbstentwertung mit der technischen und bürokratischen Entwicklung.

Zehn Jahre später hat Alexander Mitscherlich in Auf dem Weg zur vaterlosen Gesellschaft darauf hingewiesen, dass der Durchschnittsmann unter einer Arbeit leidet, die es ihm nicht mehr erlaubt, »seine eigene persönliche Fähigkeit, sein individuelles Talent, Geschick und Ausdrucksbedürfnis in ihr unterzubringen«, sondern im Gegenteil ein Dauergefühl von Enttäuschung, Frustration und Zorn schafft. Der Mann ist »leidend in ein Tun verstrickt, das sich als unzulänglich für seine Gestaltungs- und Ausdrucksbedürfnisse erweist«.

Das sind nur einige Vignetten, aber sie zeigen an, dass es historisch falsch wäre, dem Feminismus die Enteignung der Männlichkeit zuzuschreiben.

Die Krise der traditionellen Männlichkeit lässt sich ebenfalls nicht an den Feminismus binden: Sie ist zum Beispiel schon in der Weimarer Republik ein großes Thema gewesen – nicht in der sozialwissenschaftlichen Literatur, die die Geschlechterfrage erst sehr viel später entdeckte, aber in der Belletristik der Epoche. Gottfried Benn appellierte in seinem Gedicht Mann in der letzten Zeile: »sammle dich und sei groß!« Robert Musil schrieb sein Epos Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften und hatte schon zuvor in den Verwirrungen des Zöglings Törless auf die Degeneration der Männlichkeit eindringlich hingewiesen. Heinrich Mann hat in mehreren Romanen Männer in einem weiten negativen Spektrum von der Korrumpiertheit bis zur Lächerlichkeit geschildert. Hermann Broch muss hier mit seiner Trilogie Die Schlafwandler erwähnt werden, und Erich Kästner hat mit seinem Fabian versucht, ein positives Gegenbild gegen alle anderen Figuren von männlicher Peinlichkeit, von Zerfall, Suizid, Verlogenheit zu schaffen.

Was der Feminismus zerstört hat, ist also nicht die tradierte Lebenswelt des Mannes, sondern die traditionelle Bilderwelt der Männlichkeit. Die These, dass der Feminismus für die männliche Problemkonstellation verantwortlich sei, wie das vor allem die sogenannten Männerrechtler in diversen Foren des Internet redundant behaupten, ist seriös nicht zu belegen. Dieser Gedankengang gipfelt dann auch noch in der törichten Wortschöpfung eines »Feminats«, das heute angeblich die Männer unterdrückt.

Der feministische Angriff auf die Bilderwelt des Mannes ist allerdings nicht kleinzureden. Der Zoologe Adolf Portmann hat sehr frühzeitig darauf hingewiesen, dass Menschen als instinktarme Wesen notwendigerweise Bilder bräuchten, um sich überhaupt in der Welt zureichend orientieren zu können; die moderne Neurobiologie geht noch weiter und definiert Leben als Bilder generierenden Prozess: Das Bild, das wir von uns haben, ist identitätsstiftend. Ist das Bild negativ und verächtlich, führt das zu gravierenden Identitäts- und Orientierungsproblemen. Neuere Forschungen belegen den engen Zusammenhang zwischen fehlender Orientierung auf der einen Seite und Gewalt und Vandalismus auf der anderen.

Was ein großer Teil des Feminismus an Zuschreibungen entworfen hat, transportiert eine aggressiv feindselige und herabsetzende Haltung gegenüber Männern aufgrund ihres Geschlechts. Misandrie oder Männerhass ist als Gegenpart zur Misogynie ebenso rassistisch und sexistisch wie diese. In der Misandrie werden Männer als das von Natur aus böse Geschlecht herabge setzt. Im Gegensatz dazu erscheinen Frauen als das gute Geschlecht; sie werden von Natur aus als friedlich, menschenfreundlich und sozial dargestellt. Ihre Liebenswürdigkeit macht sie zu Opfern der Männer. In ihrem Buch Pornographie mit dem Untertitel Männer beherrschen Frauen konstatiert die amerikanische Feministin Andrea Dworkin schlicht: »Terror strahlt aus vom Mann, Terror erleuchtet sein Wesen, Terror ist sein Lebenszweck.« Die Konstanzer Sprachwissenschaftlerin Luise F. Pusch notiert in Feministische Soziologie: »Wir Frauen wissen nicht so genau, warum die Männer da sind. Ehrlich gesagt, haben wir uns diese Frage wohl auch kaum je gestellt. Sie sind halt da, und das ist schlimm genug. Wir fragen uns wohl, wie wir ihnen am besten entkommen und ihre monströsen Hervorbringungen überleben können.« In ihrem Bestseller Frauen setzt Marilyn French Männer umstandslos mit Nazis gleich.

Der Übergang von der verbalen Militanz zur physischen ist nur konsequent: »Ich möchte einen Mann zu einer blutigen Masse geprügelt sehen«, notiert Dworkin, »mit einem hochhackigen Schuh in seinen Mund gerammt wie ein Apfel in dem Maul eines Schweins«. Schon 1969 hatte Valerie Solanas ihr Manifest der Gesellschaft zur Vernichtung der Männer formuliert. Darin bezeichnete sie den Mann als »eine biologische Katastrophe«: »Den Mann ein Tier zu nennen, heißt, ihm zu schmeicheln.« Solanas bezeichnet alle Männer als »kaputt«. Der Mann »ist ein halbtoter, reaktionsloser Klotz, unfähig, Freude und Glück zu geben oder zu empfangen«. Auch sexuell taugt der Mann nichts: »Obwohl er ausschließlich physisch existiert, ist der Mann nicht einmal als Zuchtbulle geeignet.« Der Mann ist schlecht, böse, unnütz und überflüssig; ohne ihn sähe die Welt wohl besser aus. »Die Vernichtung sämtlicher Männer ist daher eine gute und rechtliche Tat; eine Tat, die sich zum Wohl der Frauen . . . auswirken würde.«

Die männliche Geschichte wird präsentiert als eine Abfolge von Kriegen, Brutalität, Zerstörung, Unterdrückung und Gewalt; ihre Akteure sind Judas, Nero, Brutus, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Karadžić, Saddam Hussein oder Charles Manson. Besonders diffamierend ist die feministische Auseinandersetzung mit der männlichen Sexualität. Dworkin bezeichnete den »Penis als Waffe« und männliches Unterdrückungsinstrument: »Die Aversion der Frauen gegen den Penis und gegen Sexualität« muss »als Weigerung der Frauen« gewertet werden, »dem wichtigsten Werkzeug männlicher Aggression gegen Frauen zu huldigen«. Deutsche Feministinnen wie Alice Schwarzer sind noch weitergegangen und haben aus der männlichen Sexualität unmittelbar die patriarchale Herrschaft abgeleitet.

Nun haben solchen Unfug auch Männer mitgetragen. In seinem Buch Der Untergang des Mannes versteht Volker Elis Pilgrim Anfang der siebziger Jahre die Männerherrschaft einerseits und die Unterdrückung der Frau andererseits aus den »sexuellen Beziehungen«. Ein prototypisches Dokument jener Zeit war auch der Aufsatz von Claudio Hofmann Über das Unglück, kein Feminist zu sein. Darin bekennt sich der Autor als »feministischer Mann« und artikuliert seine »Hoffnung, dass die Frauenbewegung endlich die Schreckenswelt der Männerherrschaft mit Krieg, Gewalt und Verwüstung auflösen könnte in ein sanftes paradiesisches Zeitalter«. Hofmann büßt mit seiner männlichen Existenz für alle Schandtaten des Patriarchats in der gesamten Weltgeschichte: »Mit den Augen der Frauen traue ich mich hinzusehen und zu erkennen, wie in den gerühmten Jahrtausenden abendländischer Kultur das Blut trieft. Wie die Gemälde, Säulenhallen, Basiliken, Sonette und die erhabenen Gedankengebäude zusammenhängen mit den Epochen des Abschlachtens. Erst mit Stöcken und Knüppeln, Speeren, Pfeilen, Säbeln, Dolchen, Pistolen und allen verfluchten Wunschbildern von steifen spritzenden Schwänzen. Heute mit Giftgas, Napalm, Bomben, Raketen.«

Der Rowohlt-Verlag gab zu jener Zeit eine Reihe »Mann« heraus, deren Editorial folgendermaßen einsetzte: »Der Mann ist sozial und sexuell ein Idiot.« Die feministische Entwertung des Mannes ergänzt sich also durchaus heftig mit einer Selbstentwertung feministischer Männer. In Anlehnung an seinen amerikanischen Kollegen John Stoltenberg, der ein Buch mit dem Titel Refusing to Be a Man geschrieben hat, forderte Pilgrim den »Untergang des Mannes«. Sich selber hat Pilgrim nur vor dem eigenen Ende gerettet, indem er sich »den Frauen gewidmet« hat: Er habe von ihnen gelernt, »was ich gemeinhin als Mann in dieser Gesellschaft nicht habe, was für mich aber einen hohen Wert für die Ausbildung zum Menschen bedeutet«.

Das mag schon die zunehmende Verzahnung von feministischen Zuschreibungen und dem Zeitgeist andeuten. Sukzessive wird die entwertende Darstellung des Mannes habituell. Nicht zuletzt die Medien transportieren die Abwertung der Männlichkeit. 2007 werben die »Cosmos Direkt Versicherungen« im deutschen Fernsehen mit folgendem Spot für ihre Lebensversicherung: Vater und Mutter sitzen auf dem Sofa; auf dem Teppich spielt ein kleines Mädchen, das zu seiner Mutter sagt: »Du Mama, wenn Papa tot ist, kaufe ich mir erstmal einen Ponyhof.« Die Mutter entgegnet: »Moment. Wenn Papa weg ist, kaufe ich mir erstmal ’ne Finca auf Mallorca.« Im Mai 2009 kündigt die ARD in ihrer Sendereihe Hart, aber fair eine Zeitdiagnose des Mannes unter dem Titel an: »Ewig Kind, häufig Macho, schließlich Sugardaddy – sind denn Männer nie normal?« Im selben Jahr inszeniert die ARD im Vorabendprogramm eine neue Serie Eine für alle. Frauen sind einfach besser, in der Männer als Versager und Intriganten präsentiert werden.

In der umfangreichen Studie Spreading Misandry haben Paul Nathanson und Katherine K. Young nachgewiesen, dass negative Bilder von Männlichkeit, die der Feminismus verbreitet hat, zunächst von der elitären intellektuellen Kultur übernommen wurden und sich inzwischen in der Populärkultur massiv verbreitet haben. Die Autoren machen dabei unterschiedliche Techniken der Misandrie aus. Dazu gehört die »Verlächerlichung« von Männern: »Heute ist es für jedermann in Ordnung, sich über Männer lustig zu machen, jedenfalls über weiße, bürgerliche Männer, aber nicht über Frauen oder Schwarze.« Eine zweite Technik ist, auf Männer verächtlich herabzuschauen, eine dritte, sie überhaupt nicht mehr zur Kenntnis zu nehmen und so zu tun, als bestünde die Welt nur aus Frauen und Mädchen. Eine vierte Technik besteht darin, Männer für alles Schlechte verantwortlich zu machen: »Wenn die Menschen einmal den Gedanken akzeptiert haben, dass Männer die histori sche Quelle des Bösen sind, braucht es nicht viel Phantasie, einen Schritt weiterzugehen und zu behaupten, dass Männer auch die metaphysische Quelle des Bösen sind.« Die fünfte Technik entmenschlicht Männer und stellt sie als Bestien und Untermenschen dar; die sechste Technik dämonisiert das männliche Geschlecht und macht es zu einem nur noch hassenswerten Objekt.

Die medialen Bilder infiltrieren dabei mehr und mehr die soziale Wirklichkeit. Zwischen 2007 und 2010 verfügen mehrere internationale Fluggesellschaften, dass alleinreisende Männer nicht mehr neben Kindern sitzen dürfen. 2008/2009 organisiert das österreichische Frauenministerium eine große Plakatkampagne gegen Männergewalt, auf der unter einem abgebildeten Vater die Ehefrau und die Tochter mit Schutzhelmen posieren.

Männlichkeit findet sich damit im öffentlichen Diskurs zunehmend in einem pathologischen Kontext von Abweichung, Dissozialität und Verbrechen. Einst hochgelobte männliche Eigenschaften wie Leistungswille, Disziplin und Autonomie werden umgedeutet zu Karrierismus, Zwanghaftigkeit oder Beziehungsunfähigkeit.

Verfolgt man aufmerksam die Entwicklung über die vergangenen vier Jahrzehnte, so wird man feststellen müssen, dass sich auch Definitionen und Inhalte zwischenmenschlicher Realitäten wie Ehe, Beziehung, Liebe, Treue, Sexualität, Verantwortung, Fürsorge, Erziehung und Sozialisation verändert haben. Galt einst als zureichender Liebesbeweis eines Mannes, dass er seine Familie ernährt und beschützt, müssen Männer heute, um überhaupt als beziehungsfähig anerkannt zu werden, wie Frauen Gefühle zeigen und diese auch verbal ausdrücken können; ihr Innerstes offenbaren, hellhörig sein für die Signale der Partnerin, kommunizieren, problematisieren und initiieren. Das muss gewiss kein Nachteil sein, aber beachtenswert ist doch die historische Einordnung, wie sie zum Beispiel Bernie Zilbergeld in Die neue Sexualität der Männer vornimmt: »Da diese Definition dem entspricht, was Frauen für sich wollen und tun, kann es nicht überraschen, dass Männer deshalb schlecht wegkommen im Vergleich. Ständig werden sie für das kritisiert, was sie nicht tun – doch was ihnen möglich ist und wie sie versuchen, Liebe zu zeigen, wird selten beachtet oder anerkannt.« Und Zilbergeld schiebt gleich noch die beredte Klage eines seiner Patienten nach: »Die Welt wird immer weiblicher. Frauen bestimmen die Regeln der Liebe, der Sexualität und alles andere. Ich weiß überhaupt nicht mehr, wie ich mich als Mann verhalten soll.«

Das ist kein vereinzeltes Statement. Die deutsche Sinus-Studie über zwanzigjährige Frauen und Männer, die von Regierungsseite 2007 in Auftrag gegeben wurde, konstatiert, dass junge Männer heute »geplagt sind von einer fundamentalen Unsicherheit« und sogar von der Angst, als Geschlecht bald »überflüssig zu werden«: »Die Männer leiden in ihrer subjektiven Befindlichkeit und fühlen sich in der Defensive: Die Frauen schreiben das Drehbuch und geben den Figuren eine Rolle; der Mann ist Schauspieler mit der einzigen Aufgabe, die ihm zugeschriebene Rolle auszufüllen.«

Das Weibliche ist heute, zumindest ideologisch und normativ, mehr wert als das Männliche. Das gilt zum Beispiel für alle Institutionen, die mit Erziehung und Sozialisation zu tun haben. Zur Erklärung dafür Verschwörungstheorien zu konstruieren, wie das »Männerrechtler« tun, ist allerdings dumm. Auch sind keine feministischen Aktionen bekannt, bei denen männliche Erzieher aus den Kindergärten und männliche Lehrer aus den Schulen gejagt worden wären. Wenn Männer diesen Institutionen keine Bedeutung zumessen und ein männlicher Bundeskanzler alles, was mit Erziehung und Familie zu tun hat, als »Gedöns« veralbert, wird sich kein Mann beklagen dürfen, dass Frauen zunehmend die Definitionsmacht in Bereichen übernehmen, die für die Nachhaltigkeit der gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung zentral sind.

Es wird dabei zu unterscheiden sein zwischen gewollter und geschlechtsnatürlich gewachsener Diskriminierung. Die gewollte Diskriminierung kann so offen sein wie in der feministischen Formel, nach der es den Jungen deshalb schwerer gemacht werden muss, damit es die Mädchen einmal leichter haben. In ihrem Buch Save the Males berichtet Kathleen Parker von der Grundschullehrerin ihres Sohnes, die auch die Buben konsequent mit »she« anspricht. Die gewollte Diskriminierung kann aber auch verdeckt sein, wenn zum Beispiel wie im schweizerischen Schulsystem sprachliche Leistungen grundsätzlich mit einem höheren Punktesystem bewertet werden als Leistungen in den naturwissenschaftlichen Fächern oder Jungen bei gleichen Noten in Deutschland signifikant weniger an Gymnasien versetzt werden als Mädchen.

Unter geschlechtsnatürlich gewachsener Diskriminierung verstehe ich den Vorgang, dass Erzieherinnen und Lehrerinnen auf eine mütterliche Kultur der Harmonie, Ruhe und Anpassung setzen, die, nachgewiesenermaßen, vielen Grundbedürfnissen der Jungen widerspricht. Die amerikanische Philosophin Christina Hoff Sommers, die sich selber als kritische Feministin sieht, hat das in Who Stole Feminism? sarkastisch kommentiert: »Wenn Tom Sawyer und Huckleberry Finn heute leben würden, würde man bei ihnen ein Aufmerksamkeits-Defizit-Syndrom diagnostizieren und sie mit Ritalin ruhigstellen.«

Weibliches Lehrpersonal ist von der eigenen Sozialisation her kenntnismäßig auf Mädchen eingestellt; Lehrerinnen können sich aufgrund der bestehenden Rollengleichheit auch eher mit Mädchen identifizieren; sie verstehen Mädchen besser als Jungen, die für sie das fremde Geschlecht verkörpern; das Benehmen und die Bedürfnisse von Mädchen sind ihnen vertraut; ihre Erwartungen richten sich bewusst oder unbewusst auf die Fähigkeiten und Sensibilitäten von Mädchen; sie bemühen sich im Regelfall auch nicht, wie etwa William Pollack in Richtige Jungen bemerkt, »ausfindig zu machen, was in den Jungen tatsächlich vorgeht, sondern nehmen von vornherein etwas Negatives wahr«. Pollack spricht resümierend »von einer Abwehrhaltung gegen Jungen in der Schule«. So kommt es denn, dass Jungen (wie an einer Berliner Hauptschule) im Sportunterricht Schleiertänze aufführen müssen oder dass ihnen (wie im Schweizer Halbkanton Baselland soeben geschehen) die Spielfläche auf dem Pausenhof in eine »Kommunikationsfläche« umge wandelt wird, weil nach Auffassung der Rektorin Reden auch für Buben gesünder sei als Toben.

Zum Zeitgeist genereller Entwertung von Männlichkeit gehört, dass Probleme von Jungen und Männern nicht wahrgenommen werden. Das gilt beispielsweise für den makabren Tatbestand, dass sich in der Pubertät acht- bis zehnmal mehr Jungen umbringen als Mädchen. Obwohl das männliche Geschlecht »gesundheitspolitisch« das schwächere Geschlecht ist, verweigert die deutsche Bundesregierung den Männern seit Jahren einen Gesundheitsbericht, den es für Frauen seit langem gibt.

Die Machtdebatte in der Gesellschaft bestimmt die öffentliche Diskussion dermaßen, dass darüber andere Tatbestände in Vergessenheit geraten. Dass Männer in vielen Rechtsbereichen wie dem Scheidungs-, Sorge- und Unterhaltsrecht diskriminiert werden, wird ebenso wenig in den breiten öffentlichen Diskurs aufgenommen wie geschlechtsspezifische Einseitigkeiten beim Militärdienst, bei der Altersversorgung oder dem Arbeitsschutz, um nur wieder wenige Bereiche beispielhaft zu benennen.

So sehr Männer noch immer an der oberen Spitze der sozialen Pyramide überrepräsentiert sind, so sehr sind sie es auch am unteren Ende. Das Gros der Arbeitslosen, Hilfsarbeiter, Obdachlosen oder chronisch Kranken ist männlich, ohne dass jemand dies zum Anlass nähme, darin eine gesellschaftliche Ungerechtigkeit zu sehen. Des weiteren üben Männer nicht nur die dreckigsten Berufe aus (Müllabfuhr, Entsorgung, Tiefbau, Abwässerreinigung), sondern auch die gefährlichsten (Hochbau, Gefahrengüterentsorgung, Dachdecker, Gleisbauer, Sicherheitswesen, Feuerwehr, Katastrophenschutz, Bergwerk). Das Verhältnis von männlichen zu weiblichen Opfern bei den Einsätzen von Polizei, Feuerwehr, Notärzten, Sanitäts- und Katastrophendiensten oder technischem Hilfswerk beträgt neunundneunzig zu eins. Bei den Rettungsaktionen in Tschernobyl und am 11. September 2001 in New York sind ausschließlich männliche Helfer gestorben.

Jungen und Männer bleiben im deutschsprachigen Raum eine Terra incognita, und dieser Zustand scheint als permanenter auch gewollt. Als illustrierendes Beispiel dafür kann angefügt werden, dass das Statistische Bundesamt zwar mädchenspezifische Bildungsdaten erhebt, aber keine für Jungen oder dass es im akademischen Bereich mehr als zweihundert Lehrstühle für Frauenforschung gibt, aber keinen einzigen für Männerforschung. Dass Männer in der offiziellen Geschlechter- und Gleichstellungspolitik lediglich als Objekt der Kritik ins Visier geraten sind, ist nicht nur »erkenntnistheoretisch« problematisch. Grundsätzlich läuft es der demokratischen Verfasstheit eines Staatswesens zuwider, wenn ein ganzes Geschlecht aus den politischen Bemühungen ausgespart bleibt, ja vielfach als eigenständiges Geschlecht überhaupt nicht wahrgenommen wird. Das gilt selbstredend auch für eine Geschlechterpolitik, die Jungen und Männer an weiblich gesetzten Erwartungen misst.

Im vergangenen Jahr hat das Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend »Neue Perspektiven für Jungen und Männer« formuliert. Darin heißt es: »Gleichstellungspolitik ohne die aktive Einbindung der Männer ist heute nicht mehr zeitgemäß. Sie muss mit den Männern gemacht werden«. Dass »auch die Anliegen von Männern berücksichtigt« werden, bedeutet dann konkret, »das Berufswahlspektrum für Jungen und Männer auf bisweilen frauentypische Berufe im Dienstleistungs- und Pflegebereich zu erweitern«. Das ist, wenn auch auf einer anderen Ebene, die gleiche Haltung, die den Buben den Fußball wegnimmt und sie zum Kommunizieren zwingt.

Was den Zustand verschärft, ist, dass Männer keine Advokaten für ihre Sache haben. Als Antwort auf die Frauenforschung hat sich die Männerforschung konstituiert. In ihren Anfangszeiten hat sie sich quasi vollumfänglich an den Erkenntnissen der Frauenforschung orientiert und sich überdies explizit als feministisch oder zumindest profeministisch verstanden. Die Lebenszusammenhänge von Männern wurden im Selbstverständnis und in den Kategorien feministischer Wissenschaft interpretiert. Dementsprechend argumentierte diese Männerforschung nicht nur häufig an den pragmatischen Bedürfnissen der realen Männer vorbei, sondern nahm auch deren vielfache Bedürftigkeiten nicht wahr. Ein Beispiel dafür ist der repräsentative Sammelband Men’s Lives von Michael S. Kimmel und Michael A. Messner, der männliches Leben im Wesentlichen reduziert auf Machterwerb, Gewalt, Krieg, die Unterdrückung von Mädchen und Frauen, sexistische Witze, sexuellen Missbrauch, Vergewaltigung, Pornographie und Konkurrenz. Die Analyse orientiert sich nicht an den männlichen Wirklichkeiten und Bedürfnissen, sondern an feministischen Kategorien.

Robert (heute: Raewyn) Connell verweist in Der gemachte Mann darauf, dass die profeministischen Männer eine große Bandbreite von feministischen Aktivitäten unterstützt haben und nennt als Beispiele die Erforschung des Geschlechterthemas, Kinderbetreuung bei Frauenkonferenzen, Maßnahmen zur Gewaltprävention und, allen Ernstes, die Feminisierung der Schulbücher. Noch weiter geht Jeff Hearn, der in seinen »Fünf Prinzipien für eine kritische Männerforschung« ausdrücklich eine feministische Sichtweise verlangt; auch eine männliche Praxis der Veränderung habe zumindest profeministisch zu sein

Die Kritik solcher Verhältnisse wird aber noch grundsätzlicher ansetzen müssen: Das vorgegebene Engagement dieser Männerforschung für den Feminismus bewirkt, dass die Prämissen, Ergebnisse, Dogmen und Forderungen der Frauenbewegung vorbehaltlos übernommen werden. Die gänzlich unwissenschaftliche Konsequenz davon ist, dass die Lebensbedingungen und die Bedürfnisse von Männern gar nicht erst zur Kenntnis genommen, geschweige denn empirisch überprüft werden. Geradezu erschreckend ist dabei die völlige Empathielosigkeit gegenüber dem eigenen Geschlecht. Eine normale Selbstliebe ersetzen die Profeministen durch Selbsthass und diffuse Schuldgefühle gegenüber den Frauen; alles Negative wird auf Männer projiziert, alles Positive auf Frauen. Es fehlt die grundlegende Selbstakzeptanz als Mann und der nötige Respekt für das eigene Geschlecht. In ihrem Buch Den Mann zur Sprache bringen merken die deutschen Psychotherapeuten Wolfgang Neumann und Björn Süfke in ihrem Vorwort an, dass sie »Männer ganz ein fach mögen« und ergänzen, dass sie, bei allen Schwierigkeiten, die »Begegnungen mit männlichen Klienten überaus befriedigend und bereichernd« fanden.

Männer und Jungen bräuchten Advokaten. Albert Camus hat bei der Entgegennahme des Nobelpreises als vornehme Aufgabe des Intellektuellen definiert, dass er seine Stimme für jene erhebt, die ihre Stimme nicht selber erheben können. Es bedürfte zum zweiten eines Empathieschubs für Jungen und Männer, der es überhaupt ermöglicht, sie endlich so wahrzunehmen, wie sie wirklich sind. Ende Dezember 2009 habe ich in einer Schweizer Tageszeitung die Todesanzeige für einen dreiundvierzigjährigen Mann gelesen, der sich selbst getötet hatte. Darin hieß es: »Nie hast du dich beklagt, nie gejammert, warst immer ausgeglichen und zufrieden, bist deinen Weg gegangen. Und als du einmal Hilfe brauchtest, wolltest du niemanden damit belasten.«

Kritische Männerliteratur hat immer wieder darauf aufmerksam gemacht, dass Männer notwendigerweise in einer Zwickmühle stecken: Erfüllen sie die vorgeschriebenen Rollenerwartungen von Erfolg, Härte und Konkurrenz, kommen ihre menschlichen Grundbedürfnisse von Selbstverwirklichung, Wohlergehen und Zufriedenheit zu kurz. Geben Männer aber diesen Bedürfnissen nach, erscheinen sie in der gesellschaftlichen Fremdwahrnehmung als unmännlich. Herb Goldberg hat schon 1975 in Der verunsicherte Mann exemplarisch darauf hingewiesen, dass es für Männer eine tragische Tatsache ist, Einstellungen und Verhaltensmuster, die einem Menschen schaden und ihn möglicherweise sogar zerstören, aufgrund des gesellschaftlichen Außendrucks für ausgesprochen männlich halten zu müssen, während das, was für persönliche Verwirklichung und Menschsein wichtig ist, als weiblich diskriminiert wird und also männlich abzuwehren ist.

Die Lösung haben jene Männer beschrieben, die 1970 im kalifornischen Berkeley das erste Zentrum für Männer gegründet haben: »Wir als Männer möchten unsere volle Menschlichkeit wieder haben; wir möchten uns selbst gernhaben, wir möchten uns gut fühlen und unsere Sinnlichkeit, unsere Gefühle, unseren Intellekt und unseren Alltag zufrieden erleben.«

Mittelschichtsfeminismus

2010-10-15T09:43:00.001+01:00

Eine ideologiekritische Betrachtung des Mittelschichtfeminismus

Felizita Asmus

Gleichberechtigung kann zweierlei bedeuten. Zunächst bedeutet sie natürlich formale Gleichstellung, die - was die Gleichstellung von Frauen betrifft - mit den sozialdemokratischen Reformen des Zivilrechts in den siebziger Jahren als weitgehend abgeschlossen betrachtet werden kann. Aber Gleichberechtigung in diesem Sinne ist natürlich noch keine echte Gleichstellung. Darum werden weiter gehende Maßnahmen gefordert, um für Frauen die gleichen Chancen zu schaffen wie für Männer und sie tatsächlich gleichzustellen. Aber die Forderung nach tatsächlicher Gleichstellung ist nicht so unproblematisch, wie sie zunächst erscheinen mag.

Die Forderung nach Gleichstellung der beiden Geschlechter wirft die Frage auf, wie wir Ungleichheit bewerten und bis zu welchem Grad wir sie tolerieren sollen. Tatsächlich fordert kaum jemand die Gleichstellung aller Menschen, in der Weise, wie es Feministinnen und Feministen für Frauen tun. Vielmehr wäre diese Forderung politischer Suizid, wenn sie mit gleichem Ernst in Bezug auf andere Gruppen vorgetragen würde. Es ist wohl unbestritten, dass die Lebenschancen sehr ungleich über die Menschen verteilt sind; es ist messbar: Kinder von Beamten besuchen sehr viel öfter weiterführende Schulen als die Kinder von Angestellten oder gar Arbeitern. Kinder gebildeter, reicher und erfolgreicher Leute werden zumeist selbst solche gebildeten, reichen und erfolgreichen Leute. Und selbst wenn das daran läge, dass gut situierte Leute die intelligenteren und fleißigeren Kinder bekämen - warum sollte es gerecht sein, dass ein dummer Mensch ein weniger schönes Leben hat als ein schlauer? Dennoch fordert kaum jemand diese Ungleichheiten durch geeignete Maßnahmen zu beseitigen und Gerechtigkeit herzustellen. - Nur dass den Frauen Gerechtigkeit widerfahren muss, daran scheint es keinen Zweifel zu geben.

Viele Menschen haben die Intuition, dass Frauen die gleichen Rechte genießen sollten wie Männer, dass sie die gleichen Chancen im Berufsleben und vergleichbar hohe Einkommen haben sollten. Doch so gut sich diese Intuition nachvollziehen lässt und so berechtigt die Forderung nach Gleichstellung grundsätzlich sein mag, so ist sie doch nicht unproblematisch; denn das damit beschworene Postulat der Egalite hat in unserer Gesellschaft allenfalls ausnahmsweise Gültigkeit. Benachteiligungen und Ungerechtigkeiten sind bei uns der Regelfall und werden zumeist - auch von Frauenrechtlerinnen - ohne Widerspruch akzeptiert, und zwar aus gutem Grund. Wir akzeptieren eine ungleiche Verteilung in der Regel dann, wenn sie oder die ihr zu Grunde liegenden Prinzipien insgesamt für alle von Vorteil sind. Ein leistungsfähiges Wirtschaftssystem, das ohne die durch ungleiche Verteilung möglichen "`Anreize"' funktioniert, ist noch nicht erfunden. Aber auch die Unterschiede, die nicht durch unser Wirtschaftssystem verursacht oder gerechtfertigt sind, werden wir vernünftigerweise nicht um jeden Preis aufheben wollen. Zum Beispiel könnten wir versuchen, echte Chanchengleichheit über das Bildungssystem herzustellen. Aber das wäre unvorstellbar teuer, wenn wir es mit allem Ernst täten. Also begnügen wir uns damit, Chancengleichheit nur ansatzweise herzustellen, so dass die Früchte dieser Bemühungen vielleicht sogar ihren Preis wert sind.

Wenn wir eine Gleichverteilung aller wertvollen Güter erzwingen wollen, entstehen Kosten. Diese Kosten können so hoch sein, dass selbst bei gleicher Verteilung des restlichen Sozialprodukts auch die Ärmsten weniger haben als zuvor. Und darum sollten wir gewisse Unterschiede tolerieren - ob sie nun Status, Einkommen oder was auch immer betreffen. Und tatsächlich diskriminieren wir nach Bildung, Fleiß, Intelligenz, Alter, Gesundheit und fast allem, das Menschen unterschiedlich macht. Wer genau hinsieht, wird feststellen, dass die Diskriminierung nach dem Geschlecht nicht die wichtigste ist; die Diskriminierung nach dem Geschlecht ist - von Ausnahmen abgesehen - nicht einmal direkt nachweisbar, sondern überwiegend Interpretation statistischen Materials. Jedenfalls hat eine aus der oberen Mittelschicht stammende Frau heute deutlich bessere Lebenschancen als Männer (oder Frauen) aus der Unterschicht, und zwar bezüglich Bildung, Beruf, Einkommen, privatem Glück und einigem mehr.

Nun könnte hiergegen eingewandt werden, dass die Diskriminierung nach dem Geschlecht eben nicht dadurch gerechtfertigt ist, dass sie allen nützt, dass im Gegenteil Frauen auch dann benachteiligt werden, wenn sie besser qualifiziert sind. Aber selbst wenn das in nennenswertem Umfang der Fall wäre, sollten wir nicht Gleichstellung fordern, sondern mit Nachdruck fordern, dass die allgemein gültigen und akzeptierten Auswahlkriterien auch für Frauen gelten sollen. Es wäre glücklich gefügt, wenn wir Gleichbehandlung erzwingen könnten. Aber das können wir nicht - nicht ohne Kosten. Maßnahmen gegen diskriminierendes Verhalten Einzelner würden neben der erwünschten Wirkung immer auch unerwünschte Nebenwirkungen haben.

So wird zum Beispiel gefordert, bei der Besetzung von Stellen aus einer Zahl gleich qualifizierter Bewerber immer eine Frau auszuwählen. Etwas schärfer heißt die Regel Frauen bevorzugt einzustellen, was auch ehrlicher ist, denn Bewerber sind so gut wie nie gleich qualifiziert, es sein denn, es ginge darum, den Posteingang in Fächer zu sortieren. Aber um diese Stellen streiten die Feministinnen ja gar nicht. Was aber würde es kosten, diese Forderung auch wirklich durchzusetzen? Wenn man es der Willkür der Einstellenden überließen, wann zwei Bewerber gleich qualifiziert sind, würde vermutlich gar nichts passieren. Also muss man als erstes Willkür ausschließen, indem man das Verfahren formalisiert, die Kriterien für die Beurteilung der Bewerber schon im Vorfeld begrenzt und gewichtet. Vor allem wären weitere Personen an dem Verfahren zu beteiligen. Die Nachteile sind offensichtlich: Natürlich gibt es immer klare Vorstellungen, welche Anforderungen die Bewerber erfüllen sollen. Aber immer bringen die Bewerber mehr nützliche Eigenschaften mit, als man hat erwarten können. In einem streng formalisierten Verfahren kann dies natürlich nicht berücksichtigt werden; sonst würde es auch niemals zwei gleich qualifizierte Bewerber geben. Und dann kostet dieses Verfahren auch mehr Geld. Der Staat beschäftigt unzählige Frauenbeauftragte und unterstützendes Personal ganz wesentlich auch für diesen Zweck, während die Schulen und Universitäten, die Polizei und die Streitkräfte unter Personalmangel leiden. Der größte Nachteil dieses Verfahrens aber ist, dass Bewerber für gleich erklärt werden müssen, die es einfach nicht sind. Und in etwa fünfzig Prozent dieser Fälle werden Männer höher oder breiter qualifiziert sein. Trotzdem sollen in hundert Prozent dieser Fälle Frauen eingestellt werden.

Es ist wohl überflüssig zu erklären, dass es keinen Grund gibt, Frauen für weniger begabt und leistungsfähig zu halten als Männer. Darum sind Frauen und Männer gleichberechtigt und werden auch in Auswahlverfahren üblicherweise nicht anders unterschieden, als nach den messbaren individuellen Merkmalen, wie Alter, Gewicht, Intelligenz, Fleiß, Belastbarkeit usw. Dass Arbeiterkinder im Durchschnitt mindestens genauso intelligent sind wie Kinder von Beamten wissen wir spätestens, seit Johannes Rau es ein paar Mal erwähnt hat. Aber welche Kosten wollen wir tragen um zu erzwingen, dass sich das auch in der Zusammensetzung der Akademikerschicht widerspiegelt? In den 70er Jahren war man immer noch bereit, das Schulsystem umzukrempeln und die Gesamtschule und die Orientierungsstufe einzuführen. Nun aber sieht man, dass diese Maßnahmen zwar mit Kosten verbunden sind, aber kaum die gewünschten Erfolge bringen, und zumindest das Ende der Orientierungsstufe ist nahe. Arbeiterkindern bieten wir die gleichen Chancen. Aber dass sie diese gleichen Chancen nicht mit dem gleichen Erfolg nutzen können wie ihre Kameraden, deren Eltern höhere Beamte und gut verdienende Angestellte sind, nehmen wir mit vornehmer Gelassenheit hin.

Ungleichheit mögen wir noch immer nicht. Aber Gleichheit um jeden Preis zu erzwingen nützt am Ende nicht einmal denen, die davon eigentlich profitieren sollten.

Wer aber Gleichheit fordert, darf das zunächst einmal nicht willkürlich auf eine Gruppe beschränken, wie karrierebewusste Frauen besonders in der Politik und an Universitäten dies tun. Und schon gar nicht darf frau so tun, als ob Gleichheit der beiden statistischen Gruppen von Frauen und Männern, das heißt Gleichheit dieser beiden Gruppen bezüglich der Verteilung auf Berufe, Einkommensgruppen usw. ein wichtiges Anliegen aller Frauen sei. Viel wichtiger als das wäre für eine einfache Arbeiterin (und die Mehrzahl aller Frauen) die gesellschaftliche und politische Aufwertung der unteren Schichten und Einkommensgruppen, die Verbesserung vor allem ihrer finanziellen Situation. Und das wäre nur zum Nachteil der Akademiker- und Beamtenschicht möglich.

Aber es wird nicht Gleichstellung für die gefordert, die am meisten aufzuholen hätten. Es werden neue Stellen für Akademikerinnen geschaffen; Universitäten und Kommunen werden gezwungen, Frauenbeauftragte einzustellen; Frauenforschung wird betrieben und neue Stellen in der Politik geschaffen. Die Forderungen der Feministinnen erscheinen vor diesem Hintergrund als durchsichtiger Gruppenegoismus von Akademikerinnen mit unbefriedigenden Berufsaussichten und als geschlechtsunspezifisches Mittelschichtverhalten insofern, als dies ein weiteres Beispiel dafür zu sein scheint, wie akademisch gebildete Vertreter der Mittelschicht mit raffinierter Strategie weitere Berufsfelder und neue Pfründe für ihresgleichen und auf Kosten auch der unterprivilegiertien Schichten für sich auftun. Gleichheit aller Frauen, gleiche Rechte und Lebenschancen für Frauen aller Schichten, aller Bildungsgruppen usw. fordern Politikerinnen, die auf der Emanzipationswelle reiten, selbstverständlich nicht, Wenn sie die Gleichheit zu weit trieben, wären sie selbst bei denjenigen, die abzugeben hätten.

Wer Gleichheit fordert, muss bereit sein sie ohne willkürliche Einschränkungen zu vertreten; sonst verliert er jeden Anspruch gehört zu werden. Aber noch wichtiger sind die Kosten der Gleichstellung. Auch Frauen profitieren von nichts mehr als von einem optimalen Einsatz der Produktivkräfte und dem daraus resultierenden Wirtschaftswachstum. Vollkommene Gleichheit aller ist gegenwärtig nicht im allgemeinen Interesse, und es ist auch nicht im Interesse der Frauen, dass viele der Maßnahmen zur Frauenförderung Geld kosten, das dann an anderen Stellen fehlt. Es ist sogar denkbar, dass viele Frauen von der Frauenförderung, wie sie heute betrieben wird, weniger profitieren als von einer geschlechterneutralen Förderung sozial schwacher Bürger - etwa in Form von Wohngeld oder Arbeitsplatzbeschaffungsmaßnahmen.

Schließlich fordern viele Politikerinnen und auch einige Politiker den Frauenanteil im Parlament zu erhöhen. Einige Parteien haben intern sogar Quoten eingeführt. Aber werden Frauen jetzt besser vertreten? - Wohl kaum. Besser vertreten ist jetzt allenfalls die wohl situierte Mittelschicht. Wer es mit der angemessenen Vertretung durch das Parlament ernst meinte, würde fordern, dass ein bestimmter Prozentsatz der Bundestagsabgeordneten Fabrikarbeiterinnen, Rentnerinnen, Obdachlose und Schwerkranke sein sollten. Aber um Gleichberechtigung, wie sie naiverweise verstanden werden könnte, geht es ja nicht. Es geht um die Gleichstellung von Mittelschicht-Frauen und Mittelschicht-Männern. Bezahlen aber sollen die anderen.