Most women experience children as self-fulfillment, while most men receive parallel mental fulfillment from their place on the social matrix (known as status), which in today’s society is realized as a position in the work world. There are exceptions, but the rule and the exception do not disqualify each other, and now that we acknowledged the exceptions, the non-exceptional must also be acknowledged: a man whose main achievement in life is taking care of children and looking after them, and a woman whose main achievement in life is a position on the human matrix, will both find it difficult to see in that alone self-realization.
Most women do not achieve satisfaction from extremely demanding positions that do give them status, but at the same time make it difficult for them to bond with their children or even demand of them to avoid motherhood.
This difference between the two sexes regarding what causes self-fulfillment, stems from innate sexuality. Women have an innate desire for children (and there are exceptions; acceptance of the exceptional person mustn’t turn into disqualifying the vast majority), and should not feel guilty about their desire nor about their view of children as an existential purpose and self-fulfillment, because this is not a product of social conditioning nor of male expectations but of innate female sexuality. The desire for children is the deepest sexual urge in women, and therefore any judgmental attitude toward it is the oppression of women (naturally, sexuality is a capacity of the nervous system of sexual species that engulfs not only intercourse but everything in and around reproduction. Mating and parenting are also part of sexuality, as these are part of reproduction). In fact, the female urge for children is similar in its intensity to the male urge toward women. Most of the magnitudes found in men’s urges toward women are rarely found in women toward men, but rather, such magnitudes are seen in women toward babies and toddlers. Just as many men feel an almost uncontrollable urge to touch women, many women feel an almost uncontrollable urge to touch babies (while men find it difficult to even distinguish between babies). Women often see almost every baby as an endearing being, as men feel toward almost every woman.
Women see in having children an existential purpose, as men see an existential purpose in sex with women, in the following simple sense: A man who feels that there’s a possibility that he will never have sex with any woman, will have a feeling that there is no point to his life, and most women who feel they may never have children, will feel similarly that there is no content and purpose to their lives. The opposite is not true in most people – a man who feels that there’s high probability he’ll never have children will not reach the emotional extremity that the thought of never sleeping with a woman will cause, and a woman who feels she would never sleep with a man would not usually reach the same emotional extremity that the thought of never having a child would cause. These facts about humans are given here to demonstrate that male and female sexualities differ: Babies are to women and in female sexuality, approximately what women are to men and in male sexuality – what each sexuality is inherently primarily focused on. This is how a two-sexes sexuality operates in other species as well – the main sexual drive of males, is toward females, the main sexual drive of females, is toward the offspring.
All of these are not “roles.” These are the innate female and male sexualities. In many if not most men, the male sexuality sees children as something that must be given to a woman so that she would want to share her life with the man. We must be committed to saying the truth, and this is a human truth, even if it sounds to a feminist too simplistic or even too ridiculous to be true (much of actual human existence, is indeed quite ridiculous). Men are interested in women; children are, for most men, a price to pay to get women’s consent to live together. Prior to having children, most men generally have no special interest in becoming parents; rather, they want women. Generally speaking, it is only after having children, that men fall in love with their children, and this could remain limited to the children they are raising – they generally don’t develop special regard toward children in general, as many women have much before having children.
The feminist vision, that male spouses of such women will take care of babies and function as mothers, is not, for the most part, aware of the basic drive for motherhood of the women themselves.
This should not be taken as an assertion about what should be the human condition, but as an innocuous observation familiar nearly to every living person about what humankind is, and what the innate qualities of human beings are. This is not to say that men do not love their children – they are in love with them. However, only a small proportion of men regard raising children a goal in and of itself rather than a consequence of sharing their lives with women, and many of the few who do see children as an existential goal, are traditional men who think of children as a kind of a small personal tribe that grants them power and status in a traditional society. As noted, nothing here was meant to suggest that men who already have children, are not in love with them – they are, and require a regular parental relationship with their children as a basic human need and right – we only sketched the initial male predisposition prior to becoming a father.
From the very first line of this text, another imminent over-interpretation of its statements hovered over it, that of the feminist fallacy of argumentum ad consequentiam which I will quickly revert to before continuing. The feminist argumentum ad consequentiam is, “if some differences between sexes come from innate drives, then some differences will persist regardless of cultural influence; we don’t like this consequence, hence drives don’t exist” (differences as in the existence of domains in which a 50:50 sex ratio is not attainable because innate drives draw one sex to them and the other away). Because drives’ existence was denied, the feminist thinking can continue to, “whoever states the existence of human drives is himself the one causing their impact (by making the statement), and because drives don’t exist (we disqualified their existence ad consequentiam) there could be no reason for someone to describe them unless he intends to cause the effects attributed to drives, effects that we perceive as female inferiority – hence anyone referring to drives only wants to put women down.” Not at all. We didn’t say that women cannot or should not have demanding roles – arguing that this is what was stated here is merely part of the feminist ad consequentiam. Admitting that women experience children as self-realization while men receive parallel mental realization from their place on the social matrix isn’t coming out of any intention to prevent women from achieving anything. It could have been, but it isn’t. This is important: not everything that could be true, is in fact true – your friend could be traveling to Rome to get away from you, but she’s not, she wants to see Rome; your boss could be complementing you to make you unsuspecting so he can get you fired, but he’s not, he is only happy with your work. The fact that something could be true is not evidence that it is true. Millions of men and women who know and feel that children cause women self-fulfillment while positions cause men self-fulfillment, could be regarding this way human reality just to keep women down, certainly, but, they’re not, they only express what they feel and know as humans.
There is a well-known phenomenon of a revolving door in those graduate degrees that lead to demanding positions: quite a few women with an MD or a PhD retire after graduation or several years later.
One of the consequences of two sexualities with two different focal points – women in men, babies in women – is that most women do not achieve satisfaction from extremely demanding positions that do give them status, but at the same time make it difficult for them to bond with their children or even demand of them to avoid motherhood (yes, the exceptional person was recognized above – all the others also deserve acknowledgment once in a while, and here we are discussing them, not the exception). There is a well-known phenomenon of a revolving door in those graduate degrees that lead to demanding positions: quite a few women with an MD or a PhD retire after graduation or several years later. Feminism describes this constant stream of women who have reached their thirties and forties as resulting from microaggressions allegedly directed at them in their work environment and creating, according to the feminist narrative, a glass ceiling designed to suppress the female sex. But what such women are reporting is completely different. For example, Dr. Georgia Free, a medical doctor, rejected this narrative on her popular YouTube channel when she explained how feminists march young women like herself into restricting positions, saying “Dear teenage girls of the past and present… I’m sorry, we lied to you… We lied to you because we were lied to as well.” A former corporate executive similarly said on her vibrant YouTube channel, “Feminism is lying to you”.
As someone who knew quite a few women who left a position shortly after graduating, to fulfill other aspirations – one became a dancing teacher, another a therapist, yet another a healer – I can attest that the feminist description of environmental “microaggressions” forming “a glass ceiling” that supposedly turns the revolving door, is simply not true. They retire reporting sympathy toward them in the positions they held, even exceptional and eager support meant to keep them there, but that none of this was helpful in dealing with a sense of existential non-realization, a feeling that the position in and of itself, as a place on the social matrix of status, simply does not grant them any kind of existential realization. These positions are significant primarily for the feminist spreadsheets to reach 50% women somewhere – not to most women, save for the well-acknowledged minority. The same feminists who compile “the grand spreadsheet of feminism”, by the way, usually do not devote 12 years of their life to isolating cells in a tube or to counting light spots under a prism in order to be imprisoned at the end of this academic training for 10 or 12 hours a day alone in a dark chamber with a microscope, while regarding this an existential realization. On the contrary – they dedicate most of their life to self-realization, while sending other women to live this life, to balance the spreadsheets for them.
The conclusions from everything written thus far are many. First, it is necessary to allow women in senior or demanding positions to make time for children. The feminist vision, that male spouses of such women will take care of babies and function as mothers, is not, for the most part, aware of the basic drive for motherhood of the women themselves. Second, we must acknowledge that even after any possible social change, most women will prefer positions that allow the private life to have more weight than work, because the position itself simply does not grant most women a sense of existential fulfillment. Therefore, women should not be tracked forcefully (by feminist influence in education and culture) into those roles that typically have much more weight than one’s private life – only cultivated equally as men and have equal opportunity (as opposed to having “equity”, which amounts to tracking, forcing, and on the other end of the equation, that of men – discrimination). This will cause an imbalance in numbers in very small areas, but these are small areas, and some small imbalance is unavoidable – it is not an indicator of discrimination but generated simply because in contrast to the feminist forceful belief, the sexes are not innately completely identical. Society should reject the reflexive feminist criticism over every numerical difference in micro-areas where all conditions were kept equal. Another conclusion from the above is that men should not be blamed for inclinations created by female sexuality, and should not be attacked because of women’s preferences that men did not create, cannot influence, and are not responsible for (in fact, blaming men for women’s free choices that are entirely out of men’s control is a pattern of an abusive relationship, that formed between feminism and men). Society must not force women and men to act against mental desires, just to satisfy a psychological need of a reclusive small faction to feel satisfaction from looking at a spreadsheet showing an arbitrary and forceful “50%”. People are not someone’s numbers. In other words: People before tables.
The idea that both boys and girls can be cultivated in the same way for motherhood, is similar to the idea that both a pigeon and a hen can be taught to fly, provided they receive identical nurturing.
The different (and complementary) drives of men and women have an additional consequence: The ability of men and women to take care of babies and toddlers has a different psychological significance in both. For a woman who wanted children, the caring involves emotional pleasure and satisfaction, and a sense of self-fulfillment and realization, at least for a significant portion of the time. For the man, performing as a second mother in the house, identical to the woman (a “male-mother”, as feminists demand men to be), carries almost continuous self-coercion and a feeling of non-realization (we have acknowledged exceptions above – here the non-exceptional receives a much-needed and seldomly-held discussion). Women as well may feel non-realization during childcare; however, this comes alongside satisfaction and fulfillment that balance the burden, which is not the case for most men. Therefore, identical participation in taking care of children does not create an equal emotional burden. The reason is that the human reality is quite different from how humanity is depicted by what I dubbed the “gender church”, whose followers believe that by raising boys and girls exactly the same, identical adults will emerge.
The belief of this “gender church” is that same cultivation in all areas results in sameness (which underlies the latest trend among followers of this new type of church, of raising girls and boys “without gender identity”). This conviction is implemented in particular with the intention of making boys able to provide maternal care, for example by encouraging boys to play with dolls, perceived as learning to provide maternal care (this reveals some ignorance regarding why girls play with dolls. Dolls are not used by girls primarily for practicing motherhood, but for simulating social situations, most probably because of an innate inclination toward social interaction and analysis, in which women are proficient – this is not a “stereotype” but a simple fact about humans, with all due exceptions). Of course, one can teach both boys and girls to become mothers and expect both to be equally good at this in adulthood. However, only girls have the innate infrastructure for doing two things – develop into mothers in response to nurturing to motherhood, and form new neural infrastructure compatible with motherhood during childbirth. Only women go through a second hormonal adolescence during pregnancy and childbirth, that shapes the brain into the motherly behavior just as the first adolescence shaped the brains of both sexes and formed their sexualities.
The notion that identical cultivation of boys and girls to motherhood results in identical maternal abilities, is similar to the idea that both a pigeon and a hen can be taught to fly provided they receive identical nurturing. Certainly, the same taming can be done with both, but only the pigeon has innate genetics awaiting this learning as an external stimulus that triggers the development of flying, while the hen was not born with an aviation program, so the same training for both will not produce two beings with similar aviation abilities, but rather, one that flies and one that barely skips, because in this specific compartmentalized capacity they are genetically different. And if we insist on creating equal flight capabilities in a pigeon and a hen it will certainly not be achieved by “equal upbringing.” Rather, we will have to devote much more hours of intensive training with the hen to reach the very lowest levels of pigeon flight (and at most, will reach a violent gliding-falling, off an elevated “throwing zone”). Similarly, identical up-bringing of the sexes to the specific and compartmentalized capacity of being a mother is not the creation of similar abilities. Only one has a motherhood plan awaiting cultivation (for the same reason, enriching maternal abilities in girls is not tracking them, but allowing a potential inherent in most women to develop). The upshot of these differences is that the mental challenge for a man when functioning as an identical copy of his wife in childcare, is not equal to the mental challenge for a woman doing the same.
These differences are not the result of some cultural programming created by education but of the differences between masculinity and femininity as two complementary types of innate sexuality. Changing up-bringing from infancy will not change the deep feelings beneath the extroverted behavior.
Perhaps in order to appreciate the type of mental challenge we are discussing, one needs to be aware that babies are not passive beings. The cultural image of a baby is that of a doll; nothing could be further from the truth. A baby is more similar to a ruler, and most of the time, not of the democratic type. This strain is experienced differently by most men compared to most women because regardless of any upbringing, a man does not have equal abilities when he is required to provide equal care to babies. This means that to achieve a result equal to that of the woman, he will need to put in much more effort. To add to the man’s fortune, while a woman facing the same challenge has a feeling of existential self-realization as a remedy for the difficulties, the man does not feel self-realization from taking care of babies, but an existential non-realization, like that felt by a typical woman who devotes her life only to a position, and thus he undergoes even more mental sacrifice in generating an identical share. Emotionally, equality in care does not produce an equal mental burden. On top of this, something else is added. Today, women who expect men to function as a male-mother identical to them (rather than to participate and help), are guided by feminism to express this expectation with the familiar feminist contempt, meaning by requiring men to function as a mother without expecting any appreciation for it, to make it clear to men that “this is not a favor, it’s your duty, and you are not receiving a cookie for fulfilling your obligations” (the term “cookie” comes directly from feminist discussions). So, while women are exalted for taking care of children alongside work, the identical life of a man – dividing the day exactly like a working mother between work and babies in the same proportions (as demanded by feminism) – is typically done under contempt, cynicism and criticism. Men are put in an unsustainable emotional position that no person would have accepted (let alone a feminist woman): you will sacrifice yourself, and be despised for it. The fathers develop emotional distress, often suicidal thoughts, and warn other men of entering a parental relationship.
Changing up-bringing from infancy will not change the deep feelings beneath the extroverted behavior. The differences are not cultural programming created by education but the differences between masculinity and femininity as two complementary types of innate sexuality. Demanding of men to nonetheless function as a second mother will create a much heavier mental burden – this is not equality anymore than requiring women to lift on a daily basis bags of sand beyond their muscle capacity is. The feminist belief in sexes interchangeability which entails assertively driving women into positions that conflict with motherhood and men into being mothers to replace them, denies women of something most do need, and forces on men something most can’t cope with. For both, the toll of the feminist vision is close to unbearable, and simply beyond the human powers of most people.
Women are likewise not a substitute for fathers. Every parent knows that children are authoritative, in posing demands and in applying almost every available means to dictate their 12-months or 24-months -old will, and that no household can function nor the basic needs of the baby fulfilled and health kept without the ability of the parents to guide and direct their children to actions and compliance with basic needs (going to the bathroom, eating dinner, dressing up, going to bed). Thus children require some sort and level of authority – and this applies to the most liberal of households as well. Anyone telling you otherwise is lying, probably to oneself more than to you (they apply authority, they say “go,” “come,” “take,” and “stop” as any parent, because there is no way around it. I can attest to that, because I am myself this type of liberal parent). As noted, children would often resist caring and guidance (few people know this before becoming parents; most are not aware that this is the burden of parenthood), and here the importance of fathers comes into play. Men have a deeper, louder voice, a more massive figure, an assertive attitude, and project authority. This could have been merely a stereotype, but the reality is that it’s not, it is a simple property of human existence. This male authoritativeness – which can be provided in the most gentle and caring manner but would still be a distinctive projection of authority for a child – is imperative for taking care of children. It is the father’s innate authority that defies the baby’s dictating power, and guides the baby and toddler to acceptance of the mother’s requirements and requests. Mothers are rarely capable of providing the same authority. Without the exclusive care fathers add to the equation, an ongoing conflict can arise between mother and child, again, exhausting the woman more than it would have burden a man. If women were to function as fathers, for lack of other means for driving the children into basic, healthy and necessary functioning through manly authority, they might resort to an emotional plead – “you are hurting your mother”, thus instilling guilt as a motivational impetus, rather than a psychology driven by seeking love and growth, which can be emotionally exhausting for both parent and child (and may be hypothesized to affect the child in the long run). Therefore, mothers too, cannot function as fathers. Both are needed for their unique innate qualities, they are not interchangeable.
Society should not require of men to function as mothers, only as fathers, and my personal recommendation would be to encourage men to be active fathers, and to closely help their wives (help, as opposed to being an identical copy of their wives as demanded in feminism). Society should likewise not mislead women about the ability of most women to function as fathers. It should also refrain from tracking women into a life that would cause most of them existential suffering and regret, and instead provide only equal cultivation and opportunity, to choose any life they wish to have, including working in a position that would not interfere with raising children, even if this would appear in some spreadsheet as women and men not showing identical numbers in some specific position type. Society must accept the choices women make, and not blame or shame anyone for these choices – not the women themselves, and certainly not men, who in the West and in westernized societies have little to no control over women’s choices and carry no blame for them.
It is extremely important that women and men reach a balanced share of society’s composition in those domains where they have similar competencies, which I would contend make up the vast majority of practices, alongside the small compartmentalized domains in which a female majority or a male majority is generated by simple marginal innate differences (kindergarten workers vs. construction workers, social workers vs. mathematicians – yes, I’m so sorry, mathematics is imbalanced not because of any social influence). However this would not be reached by ignoring humanity and human needs as feminism has been driving society to conduct itself for the past three decades, but through acknowledgement of human beings. For example, through actions such as encouraging employers in intensive occupations to allow two individuals to occupy together one position, allowing both to have more private time; by extending paid maternity leave through governmental support for up to three years; and by requiring at the same time of employers to allow women on maternity leave to work for one day a week to maintain continuity within their field. If you support such actions, then you are not a feminist. You are a lovist. Feminism would have none of that. Instead it determines that motherhood is nothing more than a dictation by society and men, that women should be tracked to positions that interfere with motherhood, that governments should continue increasing budgets for daycare facilities that begin weeks after birth, to eliminate maternity leaves which are perceived as an obstacle, and that men should replace mothers because the sexes are interchangeable. The simple actions for helping women combine motherhood with demanding roles mentioned, are not feminism, but are the lovist perspective. Lovism is a new paradigm of equality, a humane and humanist one that includes both sexes and is meant for both, based on acknowledging and attending to the real and acute human needs and wishes.
Continue reading in Lovism: A Humanist Alternative to Feminism, available on amazon.