Men can rule, therefore we must.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal refreshingly challenges the conventional wisdom that men and women are exactly equal, only to assert that female rule is what’s in store for us and it’s something to look forward to. Groan.

Research has found that women are superior to men in most ways that will count in the future

Bring on the apocalypse
Yeah, somehow I kind of doubt it.
But why did men ever come to rule in the first place? Why do men seem to occupy most of the positions of esteem and influence throughout society, business, science, industry, sport, etc… as well as the upper levels of most organizations, institutions and hierarchies?

In short, because of risk. Positions of power, influence, note or esteem are relatively few. Not everyone can be a doctor or a politician or a CEO or a scientist (let alone a famous one.) Competition to fill these positions is fierce, and their attainment is always uncertain. To win big, one must usually risk big. Relatively speaking, men are risk tolerant, while women are risk averse.

Whether it is biological or cultural is a moot point, this is a necessary consequence of women having the uterii. We can risk men because we can afford to lose more of them, to death, destitution, disrepute, or whatever other sorry fates lie on the flip side of greatness. It’s as simple as that. Any society that does not concentrate risk-taking behavior predominantly in men, shielding women and children from the downside risks, will eventually be outpaced and out-competed by ones that do.

So in the long run, male rule is a given. But can women rule for a time?

Well, men are bigger and stronger and more aggressive. Additionally, men are more cooperative. Sometimes it is said that women are “more social.” But the social relations that women form tend to be relatively few and relatively close. Men are better at forming the more numerous but shallower relationships which are required to create organizations and hierarchies.

So for these reasons, and more, men are demonstrably able to rule. Women can’t rule unless we let them. But why would we do that, unless out of weakness? Letting women rule, when we can, is not in our interests (that is perhaps a subject for another article.) And it is not in their interests either, because – ultimately – women are not served by weak men who they can boss around. The illusion might be able to last for a little while, but it is only a matter of time before it leads to ruin and conquest by sturdier and more practical peoples.

Prophet Puller
Chesty understood how this works.
Once more the principle is shown, that the possible is actually mandatory, because if you don’t choose to make it reality, someone else will.

Our own species hasn’t always suffered from male supremacy. Among our hunter-gatherer ancestors, living in small, mobile communities, group decisions were made face to face, among men and women who knew each other intimately. Men tried to dominate, but it wasn’t easy. They could show off by hunting, but war, that universal booster of male status, wasn’t common.

Here we see the eternal progressive fantasy of a return to primeval conditions that have been swept away by the march of time, never to return. We can’t go back to that past because that past was conquered by this present, and it could be once more.

Author image
Northman is a latter-day barbarian who dwells in the frigid wastes north of the 60th parallel pondering the ills of the day, their possible remedies, and -- ever so infrequently -- dispensing the dig