The Blue Manakin is this bird where the alpha male bird makes other male blue manakins dance so he can 'score' with the female bird, but only if the female is sufficiently impressed by their dance. In this video we see the males performing a complicated dance all so one male bird can potentially mate with the female which is sitting there watching the display. (Originally sourced from the BBC, David Attenborough's The Life of Birds)

I think we are seeing a similar display in human society: men work in concert with each other to make sure any one man can mate by minimizing  women's access to money. Men keep women out of jobs, preferentially promote men, ensure women are paid less for the same job, and go about destroying the planet so men can show off and attract a mate.

In our society, nothing makes raising children easier than a plentiful source of money. So women are selecting for men who are rich and have a good earning capacity. As we see, the female blue manakin is bland in comparison to the male, as women tend to be in our society. Women tend to make themselves bland in our society to maximize their chances of mating - they strive for mediocrity. For instance, women strive for a generically small size, generic intelligence, generic accomplishments, and society is always downplaying the accomplishments of women. The only thing society prizes about women is their appearance and they strive to make themselves relatively indistinguishable from each other.

On the other hand, it is men who perform the great deeds and have all the great accomplishments and all of society plays along so men can stand out from each other to woo and impress women. A man who stands out maximizes his chances of attracting a female mate for breeding opportunities.

However, these days the planet doesn't need population growth and science has helped us overcome many of the illnesses that afflicted previous generations. It is ridiculous devoting half the population to the dangerous and often boring activity of bearing and raising children.

Our society should be striving for quality of life and options for everyone, not just for one gender. And while many of us still want a partner to share (part of) our life with, it doesn't necessarily need to result in or be because of reproduction.

Getting men to accept women's equality (and what I mean by that is women are of equal value to society, just different) is just part of the mission of feminism, we also have to have women accept it as well.

There are three types of women, those who think women are of equal value to men, those who think she alone is of equal value to men, or indeed all women are inferior, and those women who sit on the fence. The fence sitters are often feminists because they believe in the equality of women but the 'label' has been so polluted for them and sometimes think it's about taking stuff from men, namely power or that it tries to emasculate men. Of course feminism is not trying to do this. The second role of feminism is about freeing men (and women) from stereotypes, such as the one where they cannot reach out for help, they feel isolated and alone. Often they commit suicide as a result of the stereotype of men just do not need help. Perhaps feminism needs a new name - like people-ism or something.

I think there are two types of women, it seems, 'good' and 'bad' women. 'Good' women are 'good', they follow what society tells them too, they make sure their arm-pits are shaved, they never talk about periods in polite society, they don't have abortions, they shame sluts because they themselves aren't sluts, they are 'good' women and the rest of women are 'bad'.

I'm browsing through facebook posts and I find this article about women not shaving their arm-pits and the women who posted the article were horrified, and women chimed in promising the men they shaved their arm-pits (like any good woman would). Thank god, I thought, a woman who knows how to toe-the-line, she fits in with society's expectation of what a woman should be. Curiously, a number of men chimed in saying they weren't opposed to it although some were. But generally it's a mix, some women are supportive, some men aren't. I don't know why we have discussions about women shaving their armpits - really don't people have better things to think about?

No doubt this 'good' woman makes the appropriate comments about other women's bodies, thinks abortion should be banned, thinks boys will be boys and daughters will be told how to think and feel about abortion and her strictures on the subject is the last word on the subject.

Until all women think all women are of equal value to men, we have an uphill battle in convincing all men we are. Because those men who don't will happily quote some woman like Phyllis Schlafly to say women are not equal as if she was elected by all women to speak on their behalf. Indeed I know men who have told me that something was written by a woman to put women down, so therefore it's true.

There's no doubt human beings are primarily social. Our strength is in our ability to cooperate to get things done. And this is why we live in houses, have lots of technology and understanding, we are social beings who love communicating & cooperating.

This is also true when it comes to finding a partner. We say we fall in love and there is no point in dissecting the relationship further. But really what we are mainly looking for is companionship, someone who can and will work with us, help us, to communicate with, someone who is on our side, someone who will make our lives happier by giving us meaning and a reason for living.

Not all relationships will fulfill all those things and people draw on a whole lot of other attributes when picking a partner, like appearance, sexual attractiveness, wealth, occupation, age, education, interests, intelligence, whether they have a criminal past, gambling, or other addictions, whether they'd been married before... When I was picking a partner I had a list longer than both arms.

Yes and we get married to reproduce too, but these days we mainly want a companion to love and to be loved by us, especially in western countries.

The function of marriage, in all cultures, has always been the commitment to someone for the purposes of raising children. And of course children also give those same things that we find in a partner, a reason for living. Children make our lives meaningful too.

Originally marriage was a form of cementing alliances amongst the wealthy. But the idea of marrying for love has been something that has developed more recently. And even more recently, the idea of marrying not for the purposes of raising children at all has been admitted into the concept of marriage with gay marriage acceptable in many western countries and US states.

Love is far more important than money and the importance of love is placed at naught when compared to something like the economy. My point is love is way more important than money. Love gives us a reason to live, purpose and happiness.

If we were all chasing happiness rather than money, the 1% would give up their miserly pursuits and adopt generosity in an attempt to be happier.

Until very recently, the only function a woman really had was to get her MRS degree with her education. Women either become wives and hence mothers or nuns. I remember the despair I felt as a teenager at the prospect. My mother sent me to a prestigious private schools where she thought I would learn deportment and the kinds of things young women learn at Swiss finishing schools. Instead I learned critical thinking, that in ancient Sparta they left new born babies on hillsides to see if they survived a night in the wild. If the baby survived it was deemed fit enough to be a Spartan. We also were told to question what a day is to God. And I also learned that women could choose their own path in life.

When my mother married her only requirement in a partner was that he was wealthy and was good at making money. The only thing she wanted from marriage was children. She got everything she wanted.

She worried I would never find a husband because I was too smart and men don't like smart women. I was worried I'd end up a boring old housewife like her.

Don't marry men for money, but have a good heart, who you enjoy being with and who will help you. Of course these were some of my requirements. Yours may be different. Of course I am in the rare position of never having lived in poverty so my perspective may be skewed and perhaps I have my mothers determination to thank for that state.

Similarly, I have found men have never been put off by my brain. If anything its been an asset in separating the chaff from the wheat. If a man is daunted by my brain, he'd soon bore me anyway.

What I've found though doing research, the best men to marry are no older than perhaps 30 or 32 at the most. If they've not married and they're older than that, they either are mommy's boy, gay (not that there's anything wrong with that, it just means they prefer a different gender), or think they are too cool to marry. Check if he's been married before or had a significant relationship already. Of the two genders, men are way more monogamous, men mate once and you'll always be a comparison to his first. Men pair bond with a woman in their mid to late 20s but before their mid 30s and will be attached to her for the rest of their life.

One guy I met on his third marriage said 'our first is 40 years old this year'. 'Our' as in he and his first wife. Their marriage has been over for over 18 years, yet he doesn't refer to his kids as 'his' kids, but 'our' kids. And this is the most recent example I've seen.

Whether a man is faithful in his marriage or not, he mates for life.

When you find a suitable man, make sure he has been lightly hurt before. Why? He won't appreciate what he's got otherwise, but listen to him to make sure he hasn't already pair bonded already. If you marry a man who is older, no doubt he thinks he loves you, but once he gets you, he'll no doubt be looking for his next wife as soon as he gets you. For example Newt Gingrich or any number of Hollywood marriages.

While women are always portrayed as the major pair-bonders, not so much. They pair-bond when they are raising children, but they will move onto other men without difficulty.

Men have always been portrayed as the ones with all the advantages in a relationship and this is also been their strength. The true advantage is to women who live longer when they are not married. It is men who live longer when they are married and remain so.

While women may go onto to lose their ability to reproduce, they will always be a desirable partner because they offer companionship. They make men's lives meaningful.

Men without women are often portrayed as foot loose and fancy free are often the ones who are the big losers when it comes to divorce. Homeless people are primarily men, people who go on to get off the street are primarily women, the best employees are married men, men who are married are least likely to get involved in crime.

Don't be fooled, men need women more than women need men.

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?

There is a myth that circulates that men's only approach to reproduction, is that men try to impregnate as many women as possible.

While there is some biological plausibility to that for young men, older men know their off spring stands a far better chance of not only surviving, but surviving far better if they, the men stick around.
Whereas young men are likeliest to die young defending the tribe as they are the fittest, agilest and strongest. This remained true when tribes transformed into countries, young men are still the premium defense resource. And of those young men, the high school football/hockey team have to be the best of the premium resource. They work well in a team, they are fit, fast and smart enough. Exactly the kind of kids you want defending us.

Young men's kids are needed by our nations because they will invariably be the next generation of cannon fodder. Society expends few resources on them. Their mother teaches them enough language that they can get by in society and they may get enough education to make them useful to the military forces. They also learn to buy a girl a few drinks, treat her especially well for an evening and then she will likely give herself to him with the promise of calling on her tomorrow, when in all likelihood she'll never see him again.

Young men will do pretty much anything to get laid, generally, and, unfortunately, some women will pretty much do anything to get love. I personally think it is better to be alone than be with the wrong person, now that I am older.

But I remember when I was young, I was unlikely to have been easily convinced of that. I couldn't wait to find love. The man who was the other half of me, who would complete me. Sex was a new concept. Enticing, the ultimate expression of love. A concept totally intoxicating to most young girls. Yet the reality is teenage boys the same age as the girl are utterly useless sexually. They are likely to cum upon entry and then if the girl is as unfortunate as Bristol Palin, she'll be forced by a self-serving mother to have a baby she doesn't want. I can't imagine Bristol got any pleasure from the blessed conception and nothing but years of humiliation afterwards. And despite the humiliation, Bristol is one of the lucky girls who has family that will help her take care of the kid. Many young girls will have to survive on their own without any help if they have been bludgeoned into believing abortion is bad. If they do have an abortion, they will possibly spend the rest of their life regretting it. Or, potentially worse, adoption, worrying whatever happened to their child.

If I could tell all teenage girls this one truth, I am sure it would bring down the numbers associated with teen pregnancy. Boys your own age suck so hard at sex and especially at love, its truly not worth being involved with them. He'll have all the fun and you'll have a life time of misery, probably. It really is better to wait until you are old enough to find an older guy. If teenage girls knew this simple fact, it would possibly cut down on the number of teenage pregnancies. But for some reason society has a vested interest in protecting the egos of men, no matter what age they are.

Or at least use contraception. But abstinence just doesn't work unless you know that the teenage guy is just gonna be really bad at it. Besides how likely will he be able to support you if you do get pregnant and keep the baby?

Older men know that they must stay with the mother, if their children are to prosper. Premium children have premium resources spent upon them. Look around, you see politicians, CEOs, lawyers, professionals, scientists, academics and business owners, in general, come from two parent households. If they did come from a single parent household, there would've been plenty of help and plenty of money. Lots of resources are spent on these kids.

I had a strange dialog with a female lawyer today on twitter. She basically told me women owe men for giving us the vote and we should repay them.

This is the most ridiculous statement I've heard from anyone, including men. Women DO NOT owe men anything because if it wasn't for a woman no one, including all men would never have been born. A woman devoted years of her life to making you an acceptable member of society, teaching you manners, how to use the bathroom, how to eat, basic hygiene, how to walk and talk. A woman burped you and made sure you didn't kill yourself as you wandered about the house. Then women taught you, most likely, for the first several years of your life.

Why is women's work so completely undervalued when we wouldn't be able to function as people in society without the selfless work of a woman.

In the past, a fetus wasn't included in society simply because there was a very good chance it would die during delivery. Medical science has improved the survival rate for mothers and babies. Nevertheless, I once calculated 100,000 women die in childbirth every year in the US, and this figure is significantly higher for babies.

Scientifically, each individual is really a genetic experiment to determine the viability of the individuals genes. Many fertilized eggs die within seconds of fertilization because the genes are not viable. Many fetuses do miscarry and very often without the mother even knowing she's pregnant. But a fetus can die any time during the pregnancy up to and including during birth. Genetically, an individual isn't deemed a success until the individual reproduces successfully. But for most societies, a fetus is admitted into society after successful birth. It is then we accord them legal rights such as citizenship. Although it is arguable they are a human being until they can act civilly in society.

Ask older couples about how difficult it can be for them to reproduce and how much money it costs them so they can. Birth and pregnancy are meant to be difficult because this is a control on the human population of the planet. The environment can only cope with so many human beings.

While parents may chose to call their baby a miracle, it is not. The baby is merely the result of a biological process. I like to say that if a baby was truly a miracle, god would turn up and hand the baby over himself. But he doesn't. Biology does the job; often with the aid of science.

However as technology improved, the development of medicine, the survival rate of infants has increased. As the human race has taken over more and more of the planet, human natural predators have subsided and when epidemics occur, our medicine is able to overcome the worst plagues.

And as technology has improved so have women's rights and education. Women have more options now and as society advances every women knows to give her children the best chance of survival she needs income to support her during the later stages of her pregnancy and while she is caring full time for her infant. This time is essential in caring for the child. After the child is born the mother must feed it regularly, burp it, clean it, regularly tend and generally care for it by playing and entertaining it even when its not crying or sleeping. These years are essential to the child because during this time, the infant will go from absolute helplessness to wandering around completely unaware of all the hazards and dangers threatening to kill it even around the household. During this time the mother is teaching it to talk and manners, lessons invaluable to its socialization.

This is a selfless role that mothers must willing take up. If they don't, they might resent, neglect and at worst abuse the child.

Demanding a women gives birth and then raise a child completely under-values the role of motherhood. It is a form of rape and punishment demanding a woman gives birth to a child she doesn't want.

Demanding a woman gives birth and not care about how the child or mother fares afterwards is totally cruel. For some reason, the right always assumes people have families to help them. This is not always the case. In the end, these children become cannon fodder. This is why the British banned abortion, so they could build armies. This is why Napoleon 3 asked the Pope to make abortion illegal, so he could build his armies. Of course the Vatican saw the benefit of keeping abortion illegal. Many catholic women in poor countries without access to education have many children and this keeps those countries poor. This also keeps the true believers numerous and the Vatican's coffers full.

What happens when children are thoroughly neglected after birth was amply demonstrated in Romania when Ceaușescu's despotic rule ended. Buildings full of children who didn't know how to speak, use the bathroom or feed themselves were found. Ceaușescu wasn't the only despot who banned abortion. Hitler banned abortion for Aryan women. Stalin banned abortion but he increased benefits to women so they could afford to raise their children. Pol Pot also banned abortion.

The first nine months, IE pregnancy, are nearly trivial in comparison to the next 20 years of raising a child. Not only does it take the mothers time and attention, it is considerably expensive.

In some countries where their birth rate is low, there is never a question of taking the mother's right to chose away from her. In such countries, they make it easy for the mother by paying her to raise her children. They give her thousands of dollars for having her first and subsequent children. These countries offer real safety nets and universal healthcare.

Because it is unlikely any of these things will be manifest anytime soon in the US, we can only assume that the Republican think tanks who engender the war on women want to build armies. The rate at which the constitution is disappearing, we can assume there will be a despot appearing sometime soon in America's future.