In my post on Feminism & the birds & the bees, I talk about how women treat men and men treat women.

"Women treat men the way women wish to be treated, with respect. Perhaps treating people with respect means they will try to live up to the treatment they are given. We hope men will behave responsibly with that power that comes with their increased body strength which in turn gives them power over us in our lives."

Of course this is a generalization. Women treat male strangers this way because we don't know who they are or what they will do.

There is always a veiled threat of men's superior strength.

In general, there are four classes of men a woman knows. Complete strangers; male family members, IE fathers, brothers, sons...; partners; and acquaintances. The acquaintances might be co-workers, neighbors and friends. women might draw on this pool to select partners.

The rituals women engage in with acquaintances is usually respectful so as not to lead to unwanted attention.

Partners are a whole different ball game. It usually depends on the people involved in the relationship to figure out the dynamic. Although for successful relationships, the woman must have power within the relationship.

In this months Atlantic, Ms Slaughter said women can't have it all. Primarily women can't be the mothers they want to be, and still have careers, even with the help of supporting husbands.

My answer to Ms Slaughter is that society must change for the benefit of women. Yes women want to be good mothers. Yes women want to spend time with their children, but there is nothing so mindlessly boring as playing endless peek-a-boo with babies and changing their diapers.

Also some women just don't want to be mothers. This may seem to be shocking to most people but some women, myself included just never wanted to go thru the diaper changing, breast feeding, burping, being woken up on by a baby for feeding, and perhaps some of that would've been obviated if I'd married someone rich enough to pay for a nanny.

Some women may bare some regret over not having kids at some point of their life and this may stem from not being wealthy enough to afford nannies for those times when the baby is very young and requiring nearly constant attention. But I think there are other things that may be considered equally and even more fulfilling, like ones intellectual career. I doubt Jane Austen felt remorse for not being a mother or wife.

I can't imagine anything more boring than changing nappies for an infant that's only defense is its disarming gurgling and dewy eyed smile other than that of research. I am used to the intellectual jousting that I love and the hope for the immortality Jane Austen promises with her insight into the economy, human nature and innovation, when she wrote the first modern novels.

Anyway, society must change so that the work force is permitted to work part-time. Children of women who work full-time are apt to be spoiled yet still neglected, children of women who are full time mothers are apt to be subject to their mothers living vicariously through them.

Stay at home mothers isn't the solution to societies problems, the problem is that mothers are forced to stay at home because the work force is designed against them being within it. The reason that stay at home moms is not valued is that the role of motherhood is totally devalued and low status.

It is time we started valuing the role of motherhood.

In my last post I wrote about women oppressing women, and how fixing society involves increasing women's income and status.

When Sweden had its financial crisis in the 1990s, they decided to keep premier child minding services available to women. This kept women in the work force and kept women from being dependent upon men. This means that women get to select the best breeding partners and keep men behaving themselves if they wanted to retain their partners and the companionship that women provide.

When the people doing research into who to loan money to in the poorest societies in the form of micro-loans, they found it was better not to loan the money to men. They found to maximize benefit to that society was to loan the money to women.

What they found when they lent micro-loans to men, the men squandered the money on themselves, either gambling or spending the money on clothes or friends or alcohol. It didn't benefit their families at all. As we see recently in Topeka KS, policing domestic violence is no match for the local golf course, when times became tough for the county, they knew what was important. Men waste money on junk, to elevate their position in the peeking order.

Men always form hierarchies. One way of gaining status is by attracting a mate. In societies where women do not get to choose their own mate directly, the man trying to get a mate will be courting the man who owns the woman, ie her father or brother(s) and demonstrate the qualities that the man deem desirable in a partner. This all has subtle homosexual overtones to me. I have no problems with homosexuality, but societies where women have so little power, such as Afghanistan, open homosexuality would never be tolerated.

Men with too much power, and women little, run around like a bunch of peacocks, preening and primping, trying to impress each other to raise their position in the hierarchy.

The more money, power men have the more potential partners a man has access too. The more potential partners the man has access too, the more power the man will have. If women weren't attracted to men with money, men would not chase money.

The best societies are all those where women have to most access to money and power. The worst societies are always those men have all the power and money. There is a good reason why western societies are better than other societies, and it all has to do with women.

Women the world over have been raised to believe they are worthless. That their work is worthless and that what they give is of no use to anybody.

If you are constantly told you are worthless, it means you will not expect much in a husband. Hence it means you'll accept/expect minimal treatment from men.

Most often mothers are the ones that tell their daughters they are worthless, whether it is to protect their daughters from unrealistic expectations or a form of jealousy as their daughters are approaching the zenith of their power and the mothers powers wane. It is women who ensure their daughters have their genitals mutilated in the middle east. In this story, the women deceive the child together and perform this ritual upon her without her consent.

Women betray women all the time. Famously women betrayed Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic primaries, specifically dumping Hillary in preference for Obama. Maureen Dowd, of the New York Times, constantly attacked Clinton and here even denies it was sexism at the root of Clintons losing the primaries. Yet there were no signs at Obama's primaries saying 'shine my shoes', while there were signs at Clintons primaries ordering her to iron men's shirts and the endless commentary on her choice of clothing.

The 2008 elections were a travesty of sexism. And while I am glad Palin didn't get elected as Vice President, there was considerable sexism leveled at her and also at Michele Bachmann in 2011 debates, which always revolved around their apparel and their appearance. Bachmann and Palin should never be elected to high office because they don't understand the separation of church and state. Yet we were told about Bachmann's eyes, shoes, and how much Palin spent on clothes.

We do not discuss men's choice of apparel unless they dress completely inappropriately. Or how about this article praising Nancy Pelosi's choice of clothing? What is she a trained monkey that we need to praise for getting it right? It is completely abhorrent our obsession with women's appearance in our society and whether they are the right weight or not.

There is nothing so dismissive of a person than reducing them to their appearance but we as humans do that all the time and especially women of women. Women exclude women all the time by asking "what was she thinking?" while looking down their noses at a woman and all knowingly roll their eyes because the woman has chosen the wrong pair of jeans or last season's shade of green.

Women's weight and appearance has nothing to do with sexual attractiveness. Men find women attractive.  Whereas women dress to impress other women.

Everyone wants to please women, women and men. Why? I think its because we love the warmth and love women give. Men pay women for the comfort and pleasure women provide, yet we jeer the women who take their money. Women have always traded themselves for support in marriage. Women reproduce, along with raising their & their spouse's children, give comfort and companionship to their husband and also provide the task of being arm ornament for their husband they married in-exchange for being merely supported by their husband. Being wife is a full time, 24/7 job, being a husband, ehh.

But then why do women betray other women? To limit their expectations, bemoan advantages one woman has over another woman in terms of attractiveness, whether intellectual, personality or physical, leveling other women to their own level? One thing women hate is another woman being better than themselves. Most women see each other as equals and keep each other inline by adherence to trivialities such as appearance and exclude other women from their community to limit their power.

And perhaps this stems from women perceiving themselves as being at the bottom of the heap. Or perhaps near to bottom. Perhaps women want to provide men the simple status of having superior power to them? To give some men the simple opportunity to get 'some', whether it is a wife who'll accept anything or as a woman needing to work as a prostitute. Society must benefit if women provide these services. Perhaps it keeps the crime rate down? This is the subject of future research.

Nevertheless, once women accept their power then society will be better off.

Women's love, warmth & friendship is extremely desirable to both genders. Men and women seek out women's friendship. Women tend to be more thoughtful, see things from different perspectives, women support each other with their problems and women tell women when they should leave their husbands. Women keep men inline, generally and stop men from getting too excited and too testosterone driven.

In a group of all men and one woman, the woman usually figures out who the boss is and allies herself with him. That man now has the greatest status in the group. If the woman doesn't ally herself, she will be at the bottom of the pack. She either gives status and is thus provided with status, or has all status taken from her as all the men ally to drop her status. This is what happened with Hillary Clinton in 2008, men allied against her. When she was first lady, she was considered extremely powerful.

Women as mothers turn little animals into acceptable human beings. Unkindly, people blame their mother all too often for how they turned out while shifting responsibility from themselves. No doubt this is why there are the recurring abortion debates in the US, the work a woman puts into raising a child, converting an animal into a human being is considered utterly unnecessary. Yet without the work of a woman, you wouldn't be able to speak, use the bathroom, eat according to the standards of civilization, have manners or behave acceptably. Yet the anti-abortionists reduce the role of motherhood to merely 9 months, and not the 20 years that come after birth, the greater role of motherhood. Again we see men ally against the most vulnerable, poor young women without men to help or protect them.

If women had equal access to money in society it would require men to chase more important things than money, like personal achievements that make them attractive to women, other than merely as breadwinners. Men only being required to garner income puts a low requirement on men, while preserving their violence that makes them useful at defending. However, men's upper body strength is obviated by automatic weapons.

It is time for women to let women take their power. Women are smarter than men, because we have to usually manage a partner stronger than us while making sure that none of the kids are killing each other or eating something poisonous. Women consider more things than men do.

Income equality will mean that men will have to step up and become better men to keep their partners, thus improving society in turn. Women having more power is the true fix to the economy, the fix to all the problems facing society.

Addendum

Since I wrote this article, many women have wondered what it was about women to hold back their daughters and other women. I have added a few reasons over the past few months but it dawned on me most clearly when I was watching that old 60s movie 'guess whose coming to dinner'. The black maid was angry the character Sidney Poitier played was getting beyond himself. I wonder if women don't want other women to get beyond their station?

One of the cutest things I've observed is even the most right aspire to those things the left offer, and the left like what the right offer.

My husband's parents come from the heart of the red states, Texas and they had voted for years against their own interests, they voted GOP while the family struggled with poverty. My husbands family often lived on food stamps & state charity so they could be fed.

They didn't choose to live in poverty like this guy thinks. I can so imagine waking up one morning thinking it would be cool to be poor. Clearly the education system failed him as we can see from the abundance of misspelled words.

My husband ended up with a stellar academic career. He could have gone to Harvard but knew he'd never be able to pay back the tuition fees. His academic career culminated in him getting a Stanford PhD. He got merit based scholarships so he was debt free when he finished. His parents were/are so proud of their academic son and chuffed at his success in these bastions of liberality.

Similarly a friend who constantly fights for liberal causes is so proud her son is an entrepreneur. She's delighted he is making money and actively chats with GOP and describes them as rich, like rich is desirable.

Liberals neither shun hard work nor dislike money, despite what the people from the right say; and we are not welfare queens. But as someone from the left, I am so glad there are those programs available so my husband was able to survive and go on to prosper. Also I am so glad he was clever enough to get merit scholarships so he didn't bury us in debt.

Wanting to cut funding to programs is a tragedy for the people who didn't cause the problems in the first place, austerity is a cruel penalty for those who are already hurting.

Poor people who need help from the government tend to vote GOP, while the wealthier tend to vote Democrat. The rich areas of California are the bluest parts of the state, whereas the poorer parts of California are the reddest parts of the states. The richest people tend to live in blue states. The poorest states are all red states.

Some people believe the panacea to solving the worlds problems is community and somehow community will save us.

Community, my ass.

In this site there is a video of a community burning someone alive because they are gay or witches or some such. These kinds of videos are equally prevalent whether its gays or witches being burned alive on the internet & all horrific for 'crimes' that the community had decided to shun. Most civilized 'big government' societies would neither shun homosexuals or witches, and the punishment of burning someone alive would be considered a totally barbaric and repellent murder, whereas the crime not so much. While I am the first to say indigenous communities have been the utterly corrupted by the impact of western  societies, the people burning people alive are indigenous communities, without big government and the closest to living in indigenous societies.

People who bemoan the loss of community are the first to shun their friends, and yet first to embrace 'enemies' as a testament of their even handedness. No doubt amusing to enemies and definitely bemusing to friends.

While those friends who are shut out of communities feel despondent at first, are often quick to breath a sigh of relief from the burdens of the horrors of the community.

But of course, community can be a blessing. It gives us access to peoples influence, perhaps. Using the influence of friends in Jane Austen's society was necessary if one wanted to advance either in the armed forced or in society. However it was deemed unfair. Those with genuine merit were passed over for those with no particular merit because they were well connected.

Yet while I have been part of a community, the request for help has been hinted at but not really forthcoming. Community can be the cement that stops us going insane, but it can be the glue that forces us into insanity because we are taught by small towns that we have to belong, and having to belong, in turn, forces us into miserable holes we don't really fit into in a desperate need to belong.

We all want to belong, but when our friends overstep their boundaries, what do we do? When they don't respect our need for privacy, or our need for space and turn around and shun/or belittle overtures of friendship? Removing ourselves from their community seems little short of paradise, and thankfully, big government society permits us to remove ourselves from the families/towns/countries whence we originated.

Community may work well in certain circumstances, but it is definitely no panacea. There is definitely a dark side to community, especially when dominant personalities decide to shun certain individuals or those with particular characteristics. Most do not want to be shunned by the community and go along with the community's mainstream thought, even fitting into holes they don't fit into, just so they belong. Community can be the death trap of living down to expectations that we are all too eager to escape from.

One of the greatest accomplishments of big government is that it can control the community, the vagaries of fitting into a society directed by the vagaries of strong personality or some male chosen merely by physical strength and their whims of what may or may not be acceptable, such as with the burning of gays or witches. Thank God for Big Government.

Big government doesn't stop communities from forming. And perhaps our best way of wrestling government back from the corporations is the formation of community.

I don't know much about earlier feminist movements or the suffragettes and their attitudes towards men and sex, but I do know women love men and men love women. And you aren't going to stop men chasing women or women letting themselves be caught by men easily. You might as well try stopping the tide, it aint going to happen.

There is nothing so cool as having a man eat you alive with his eyes with everything telling you he wants to spread you on toast and eat you for breakfast.

Women love men and the attention they give her just as much as men wanna move those mountains for her if only she would ask him too.

When women want to marry rich men, men will chase money. Things have changed since Jane Austen's time, but not much. It is still economically advantageous for women to get themselves a man, simply for the financial support she gets when having and raising children, particularly in the US. And in modern European countries like Sweden, just to help share the load when taking care of a child. A woman gains status, too, because presumably, a man will act on her behalf to defend and help her and her children. Status always comes with having additional resources at one's disposal.

When women get to choose whose baby they will have, women must be choosing men with those attributes that they, the women, think benefit society. And since we are living in a society where women do get to choose, we can tell the premium qualities required by men who get to reproduce premium children, men must be rich because the cleverest men, those with PhDs from physics, math & computer sciences are heading to Wall Street.  Men are in a blind rush to chase money regardless of cost to the country, our fellow citizens. This means there is something seriously lacking in the education of women. Even the Muslims would agree:

The first word that Allah said to the Prophet Muhammad Sallallah Aleyehi Wasallam (SAW) was the word “Read”. Also our Prophet Muhammad (SAW) said: “To seek knowledge is obligatory on every Muslim male and female.” It is more significant for women to get education rather than men as the previous leader of Ismaili Muslim Sultan Muhammad Shah said: “If you have two kids a son and a daughter. Educate the daughter first because by educating a daughter you educate a family.”

When I look around at our society, I see what smart, educated women want, or have wanted in the past. Homes, schools for their kids, roads making it easier to get to those schools & supermarkets, stopping centers and churches for a 'safe' community. Because when women want to marry intelligent men, men will chase intelligence, when women want to marry kind men, men will chase kindness, and when women want to marry wise men, men will chase wisdom...

The way our society is set up, men have so much more power and more access to money. This is because traditionally men inherited their power from their strength and violence. We will never breed violence out of men because it is way way too useful for the defense of the tribe, or country. While modern weapons and martial arts may even the score up some, men still have it over women in upper body strength. While most men are not violent and violence is not condoned in our society, it is something inherited because this is fine for most women. Because women know when they are having kids, they may not be in the best position to be running a corporation or a country. However, not all women want to have kids and some women, no doubt, can have kids and run corporations at the same time.

So when things are going wrong with a country, it is a) women have less power than they should & b) women aren't being educated sufficiently well.

Taking money from the collective pool of women, means women must resort to marrying men for money. When women have equal access to power & money, women chose men with better qualities, than those that come with the dog eat dog skill set necessary to getting money in our society.

Indeed, the US treats societies that treat women well, better than those societies that treat their women worse. Societies where women are treated badly, are bad societies. What is absurd that refugees come to western societies where women are treated well, to escape the regimes whence they came only to continue treating their daughters, wives and sisters as bad as would be treated back in the country, such as with honor killings.

So far I have described the benefits a women gets from the male/female bonding, but as a male friend said to me some weeks ago, men benefit from companionship too. In a new spin on the oldest profession, men will pay for an embrace, the warmth and some affection, even if it is transitory. Men are raised to not develop emotions and when they want to find relationships they go to women. A man marries a woman, give her his strength, attention and  companionship, help and intimacy. in exchange for companionship, warmth, love, help & potential off-spring. With all the vitriol directed at the prostitutes, you'd think they were the only one's who benefit from the arrangement. Whereas, the profession wouldn't exist if there was no market for it.

Men treat women the way men wish to be treated. They wish women would grope them and use them for sex and treat them like sex gods. Women probably wouldn't mind obliging, but this probably would lead to unwanted sexual attention and we have to remember women probably would have more trouble fighting off unwanted male attention than a man would have trouble fighting off unwanted attention from women.

Women treat men the way women wish to be treated, with respect. Perhaps treating people with respect means they will try to live up to the treatment they are given. We hope men will behave responsibly with that power that comes with their increased body strength which in turn gives them power over us in our lives.