While the two sexes of humanity are almost entirely the same – they have the same human feelings, emotions, aspirations, hopes, and need for love, they have the same mean IQ, and feel the same pain and suffering, in one respect the two sexes do differ: in all the things that directly result from their sex and from the sexuality that the sex determines innately (see box). Just as we have brain areas that are sensitive only to round shapes, and brain areas sensitive only to moving lines, and areas sensitive only to faces, we have a sexual brain circuit that in men, is sensitive only to women and in women only to men, with the exception of gays and lesbians in whom this sensitivity is to their own sex.
To realize that sex determines sexuality one must be aware that sexuality is wider than “to whom one is attracted”, and includes the features that one’s sexuality is focused on and in what style sexuality is expressed. One illustrative example out of many is our innate response to nudity. The sexual brain circuit in men responds to nudity of the opposite sex 3.5 times stronger than in women, and this elevated sensitivity to nudity of the target of sexuality persists in gay men. That is, gay men are attracted to and focused on physical attractiveness just as straight men, only to a male one (gay culture is thus focused on external looks) – they have male sexuality. This pattern of sexuality is so strongly tied to innate sex that it allows to accurately identify sex from scanned brain activity. Likewise, lesbians are attracted to status and success just as straight women, only to a female one. Human sexuality, as a complex set of sensitivities and types of behaviors, is determined by innate sex. Brains of trans as well are typical to their innate sex (hormonal manipulation in adulthood very mildly alters this, and not to the other sex but to an intermediate state in limited respects).
Sexuality is thus not symmetrical. In men and in women, the very brain areas that are sensitive to sexual cues are sensitive to different things – in men these circuits are sensitive to (activated by) women, and in women the same areas are sensitive to (activated by) men. This different attraction to different things – in man to the feminine, in women to the masculine – is not cultural; this difference is formed in the embryo in the sexuality brain circuit of structures called the deep brain nuclei (see box). Human sexuality is constructed as a set of equivalences, but very rarely as a symmetry.
Culture, is created by the unique human cortex. But sexuality, lies elsewhere, in our deep nuclei, that we share with the animal kingdom. Just as cats or monkeys do not create a sexuality with a culture, humans do not create their sexuality with culture – our human sexuality is imprinted in us just as in animals. It is a simple fact of nature, that the deep nuclei where sexuality resides do not have the capacity to learn, as the cortex has, but only to express the drives encoded in them, or suppress them. Suppress or express, are the only options our human sexuality has. Rewriting is physically not possible in our sexuality regions, which is why you will hear from psychologists that the gay sexuality cannot be rewritten – culture, does not set sexuality (alas, some today might not comprehend that the same applies to every sexuality including heterosexuality).
Beneath our advanced cortex, we have primitive deep brain nuclei that produce drives. We share these brain areas with all mammals and even with reptiles, hence these brain regions are dubbed “the reptilian brain”, and these ancient areas encode the fundamental impulses that create a two-sexes sexuality: an attraction in males to features that distinguish females from males, and an attraction in females to features that distinguish males from females. An attraction in each sex to different things; an asymmetrical sexuality, established on innate asymmetry. Although sexuality can to some extent be influenced by culture, the female and male asymmetrical attraction to sex-distinguishing qualities is not cultural, it is generated by drives imprinted in us (see box).
Just like every other creature that reproduces sexually, we too, carry the same brain system that produces sexuality. Humans do have a sophisticated cortex enveloping their brains with which they have created civilizations and cultures, and which generates self-awareness that enables humans to shape themselves and humanity by choice (or at least by no choice). But our cortices are at the apex of a regular body that functions the same as the bodies of all living creatures. Humans are part of the living world. As explained by the US national institute of health, the genetic code of mice and humans is 85% identical in those regions of the genome that encode proteins (these are the genetic codes that create the living being), with some of the genes being 99% identical. In fact, of the approximately 4,000 genes studied in mice and humans, less than 10 (that’s not a percent, that’s a number) are found only in humans but not in mice or vice versa. Humans are living biological beings, who were created by evolution and share with other biological beings most of their internal mechanisms and qualities, including the mechanisms of sexuality, thereby constituting part of nature.
Generally-speaking, women have breasts, vaginas and softness and men have wide shoulders, penises and muscular physics, and within heterosexuality men are attracted (innately) to the female sex-distinguishing qualities and women are attracted (innately) to the male sex-distinguishing qualities, and the same goes for sex-distinguishing qualities expressed as attitudes, mental style and psychological differences (we said nothing here about intelligence or mental abilities and capacities. We are discussing the “how” and not the “what” here – male style or female style. Yes, some are attempting to convince themselves that every human “how” attributed to sex is “a stereotype”, but it is not. There are masculine and feminine innate “hows”, which are part of the sex-distinguishing qualities toward which the differing innate sexual attraction is set).
What is the nature of attraction? Men and women are usually not competing against each other in sexuality, but are attracted to each other’s qualities. Usually, a man is not trying to be more beautiful than a woman that he sees, but instead he is attracted to her beauty, and a woman in not trying to be stronger than a man she sees, but instead she is attracted to his strength. These are deep-seated innate sexual drives that we all carry in our sexual brain areas. When women see a sexy man who has qualities of male sexiness that they like, they don’t want to “have” the sexiness by being male-sexy like him, but to “have” the sexiness by having a relationship with the person carrying the qualities, and when men see a sexy woman who has qualities of female sexiness that they like, they likewise don’t want to “have” the sexiness by being female-sexy like her but to “have” the sexiness by having a relationship with the person who has those qualities. Both deeply want the sex-distinguishing qualities that cause them to feel attraction, but as a sexual and romantic love, not as their own traits. All humans within heterosexuality have an inclination and an inner drive to possess for themselves those qualities in the other sex that they are attracted to – to make it theirs – but, they want to posses it sexually, through sexuality, by attracting that person and engaging with him or her sexually. This drive of “having” is the fundamental mechanism of sexual attraction, it is an innate mechanism that creates life (this has nothing to do with culture – attraction to the sex-distinguishing qualities through a drive to “have” the qualities by being sexual with that individual is what operates in all two-sexes species who have no culture, because it stems from innate hard-wired drives, and as described previously, the brain areas where these drives are imprinted are not learning areas; as a side note, if you are having trouble perceiving the notion of animals having drives “to have” and “to possess”, try to take a jar of honey out of the hands of a grizzly bear).
However, although in most people the urge of “having to myself” the qualities of the member of the other sex to whom I am attracted is a drive to “have” as sexual fulfillment, by engaging sexually and romantically with that person, it seems that in a very small fraction of people, the “having” is personal, and is experienced as a drive to become the one with those qualities, and attraction is inverted into jealousy.
Humanism, is the support of human equality as equal human rights, equal human dignity, equal cultivation, and equal opportunity for all, naturally including all women, and this is the agenda with which this author and probably nearly all citizens of the democratic world adhere to. While feminism is frequently presented as being simply part of such humanism, there are extremely popular, widely prevalent anti-humanist sentiments in feminism, expressed in slogans like “kill all men” and “the future is female”, in a strong belief in female superiority and male inferiority, and in advocating for creating a difference in human rights, dignity and freedoms by sex, that is, that things that are defined as universally forbidden would be forbidden only for men while allowed for women, all necessitating the examination of feminism separately from the universal framework of equality called humanism. Many women may call themselves feminists or express support for feminism, while in fact there seems to be a very clear distinction between three types of such self-identification: women with a general humanist notion of equality who are not aware of the prevalent anti-humanism of feminism (and who would probably not agree with most of this preaching); feminist women who are aware of the anti-humanist sentiment, and endorse it, but are not the ones articulating the anti-humanist preaching; and finally, the feminist core, where anti-humanism is articulated and preached. This means that a distinction needs to be made between what might be defined as feminism-sympathizers (the two wider circles), and feminists (the core). It is quite evident that the wider two circles – feminism-sympathizers – are very different from feminists, that is, from this feminist core, and were led into following this core without realizing this difference. We are used to regarding this core according to how it presents itself – as an ideological, political, theory-oriented, somewhat academic group, however, an accumulation of contradictions in anything that sprouts out of this core, the harshest being a pretext of self-affiliation with universal humanism along with an overt sentiment which is violently anti-humanistic (calls for concentration camps for men, calls for arbitrary murdering of men, declaring “kill all men” a new-year’s resolution, books titled “I Hate Men” becoming best-sellers), in addition to conflicts between declared decrees and expressed drives, seem to point to a different nature, origin and source of this core.
There is evidently a clear hostility in members of this core toward men and manhood, which causes them to have difficulties in applying any universal perspective to men equally, thereby creating their anti-humanist position. Freud discussed what seems as expressions of a similiar conflict existing in a few women regarding manhood, which he called penis-envy. I could never quite comprehend his concept – are there really ordinary women who wish they had a penis? Why? This concept of Freud had always eluded me, and I never quite believed that such a phenomenon really exists. But recently and after observing the feminist core, I started to suspect that he might have referred to a more specific concept, which he attempted to describe with the terminology of penis-envy figuratively, not literally – jealousy in the sex-distinguishing qualities – those qualities that create the sex and sexuality differences between men and women, which normally generate in each sex within heterosexuality attraction to the other sex.
An extremely large assembly of yet-unexplained phenomena become trivially explained if we only consider the possibility that in a tiny minority of women, there is an inverted step in sexuality that causes a woman, instead of being attracted to the male sex-distinguishing qualities, to become jealous of them. And the more one looks into this the more it seems that the origin of the feminist small core described above – those who unlike humanism and its universal aspiration for equality, are formulating feminism for at least 150 years now as an anti-humanist perspective – might not be at all a political ideology, but, fundamentally, one of the many inversions that human sexuality may undergo.
Feminists present their aspirations as centered around equality, but a closer look reveals that unlike humanism, which has been advancing sexes-equality since the mid-19th century, feminism consistently had little to do with equality and in fact passionately generates wide-spread discrimination and overtly advocates for inequality in opportunity, rights, human dignity and freedoms. This low interest in equality becomes less paradoxical if one only considers that in practice, while it was universal humanism that gradually created along the 19th and 20th centuries sexes-equality in law and culturally by the combined efforts of people of both sexes, what motivated feminism was a drive to homogenize the two sexes. This focus on homogenization is dramatically expressed in the fact that unlike humanists of both sexes, feminists define equality as sameness.
When one tries to regard feminists, that is, the feminist core, as equality ideologists, their preoccupation with sameness seems baffling, as sameness, is not only not needed for equality and not possible physically (between any two humans), but is not any guarantee for equality, making it completely irrelevant for equality which begs the question – why then sameness of all things is the primary feminist aspiration?
This would however become completely explained if feminists have articulated their perceptions through a wish to obtain the features that normally attract women, for themselves, thus arriving at their focus on sameness. If feminism is regarded as an emotional inversion, from attraction to jealousy, one of the most bewildering aspects of feminist preaching stops seeming mysterious – namely, how feminists rationalized that there are no two innate manhood and womanhood but only cultural molds that create “an illusion of two sexes” (to the level of asserting that the different muscle mass and bone density is caused by stereotypes), and deduced from this rationalization that the sex-distinguishing qualities of men are also the qualities of women (hence they could potentially posses them and have hope for gratification and that the envy would subside). It is thus homogenization that concerns feminists, to obtain sameness, and not equality, and, so it seems, not because of any moral considerations as found in humanism, but out of a much simpler drive – jealousy.
In women, jealousy is almost synonymous with hatred toward the target of jealousy. This may sound somewhat enigmatic to men, but for women and girls the immediate transformation of jealousy into hatred is so self-evident that what they would find perplexing is only that I even bothered noting this. While in men, jealousy is generally associated internally (and innately) with competitiveness, and triggers either effort or defeatism, in women, there is almost no emotional border between jealousy and hatred toward the person causing jealousy. As the target of jealousy, men would thus become in the emotional reversal of feminism, the target of hatred. Thus a conundrum that literally no man truly understands today nor many women – what is the reason, justification or source of the immense, overt, distilled hate of feminists toward men – immediately becomes explained when regarding the feminist core as expressing an emotional inversion in sexuality.
Yet many more seemingly paradoxical phenomena again become clear if feminism at its core is understood as an emotional inversion: surprisingly for a group that claims to represent women, women and girls are being forced by feminists to live under the de-legitimization of their own sex-distinguishing qualities. This is done through the shaming of other women for their femininity, and in pressuring women to demonstrate male qualities – “to be better than men in manhood” (in statements that women are better fathers than men, that women should be expected to be the initiator even against their drive to be the one approached to, etc.). The overt hate-speech against men also creates an intense feminist pressure on women to denounce the male sex-distinguishing qualities in men, qualities toward which women feel attraction and love and yet are expected by feminists to conceal and suppress those feelings and instead to express repulsion and resentment toward the male qualities, with which, when feminism is revealed as an emotional inversion, a competition would exist in the feminist, creating a drive to diminish male qualities in men (by recruiting all women to denounce male qualities in men and demand of men to abolish them), for the gratification of being the one “having” the male sex-distinguishing qualities.
Feminists’ attitude toward womanhood with shame and suppression; their articulation of an aspiration for equality not as equal human rights and dignity but as “molecular equality” – sameness of two sexes (along with a contradicting belief in a kind of “perpetual latent residual femaleness” despite said belief in fundamental sameness, a residual that would grant women privileges, in contradiction to equality); their attitude toward manhood through jealousy that transforms into hate with yet the conflicting drive to show that “women are better than men at being men” – of having the male sex-distinguishing qualities personally; all become explained if one only regards feminism – this core as opposed to feminism-sympathizers – as expressing an inversion in sexuality.
Unlike the aspiration of both sexes as part of the universal framework called humanism to provide equality as equal human rights, dignity, cultivation and opportunity for all, feminism seems more than anything as the politicization of what is essentially a psychological inversion in sexuality, that transforms the drive to have the sex-distinguishing qualities as fulfillment of attraction, into a drive to possess them as one’s own traits. Such inversions in sexual processing are commonly known as sexual orientations. Just as a small number of men and women present with an inversion of the sexual processing from attraction to the other sex to attraction to their sex, women of the group commonly known as “feminism” seem to possess another type of inversion in sexual processing – Emotional Reversal of Attraction to Jealousy (which may be abbreviated as ERAJ). Hence feminism in essence, simply and plainly, can be regarded a sexual orientation like heterosexuality and homosexuality.
At some point in the mid-19th century, some women have begun expressing and revealing a sentiment which may have existed in humanity throughout the ages as an extremely rare variant of sexuality, just like homosexuality: an emotional response to the sex-distinguishing qualities of men, rather than of attraction, of jealousy. Such a tendency would be similar to that of a man who, when seeing a beautiful woman in a tight red dress with long soft hair, rather than wishing to start a conversation with her feels the urge to wear a tight red dress and grow long soft hair – to have the sex-distinguishing qualities not as fulfillment of attraction but as his own traits (indeed, this raises the question of whether ERAJ occurs in men, along with the likely answer that it does as what we regard as trans-sexual men, who may be the male form of the same sexual orientation that causes feminism; although, a clear distinction should be made between the historical, extremely rare trans-sexual man, and the contemporary mass phenomenon which, like the circle of feminism-sympathizers, seems to result from cultural influences). In the 1970s this took a political form now termed feminism, when an extremely small faction of women started to organize as a political movement allegedly to achieve equality in rights (thus ignoring the action and results of over 100 years of universal humanism that by then had already created equality in the law and in almost all cultural respects, this continuing regardless of the advent of feminism until between the 1980s and the very early 1990s cultural equality was completely accomplished in the West), whereas in practice, they engaged primarily if not exclusively in activities that seem more than anything as an expressed drive to steer society, mostly forcefully, into homogenization of sexes, a drive which can be explained as generated strictly by a personal inverted sexuality. Since this is a minority orientation, we can safely add it to the famous letters, which become LGBTF – F for feminist.
Should the sexual orientation called feminism be acknowledged and respected as any sexual orientation, depends on the level to which their jealousy translates into hatred toward men, as men and boys do not have to be subjected to pan-cultural institutionalized hate and to attempts to annihilate their maleness or themselves, solely for the sexual gratification of a sexual orientation generated by a reversal of female emotional response to men’s sex-distinguishing qualities. Likewise, women should not be put under shaming, forced masculinization and pressure to denounce and alienate those whom they love and are attracted to. Every sexual orientation should be celebrated, so long as it is not harmful to others, but it is very obvious that the sexual orientation called feminism has long reached a point of becoming extremely harmful to both sexes. If the emotional reversal to jealousy reaches hate, specifically any social expression of hate and certainly hateful acts including and primarily racist-type hate-speech meant to incite millions to inflict pain, it needs to be addressed with therapy. This has no bearing on the vast majority of femininity, as this entire discussion applies to a tiny minority, probably a fraction of a percent of womanhood included in that “core” – that is feminists – nor any bearing on sexes-equality which was and is the shared and collaborative aspiration of both sexes as part of the universal framework called humanism, that protected and continues to protect the human rights and dignity of all humans equally regardless of sex.
Continue reading in Lovism: A Humanist Alternative to Feminism, available on amazon.
Support the author on Pateron at www.patreon.com/henryblair