The Monkey and the Banana

Marriages Are Crumbling Everywhere

Marriage In Japan About half Japan's single women from 35 to 54 have no intention of ever marrying.

As I have often said over the past two years, marriage (just like all traditional institutions of 'coercion' and restriction) are crumbling.

And the only way that their powers could be brought back is if the internet was restricted and the voices of ordinary people could not be heard - which is hardly a recipe for good tidings in the future.

And so, for example, to make marriage sacrosanct again, throughout the population, a huge psychological force would need to be implemented and maintained.

But this is not going to be possible now that millions of people can voice their opinions and affect the minds of millions of other people.

As such, readers ought to discount the pontifications of those who argue that the solutions to our societal problems lie in the promotion of marriage.

They are looking backwards rather than forwards.

And they are living in a dream world.

The solutions lie in the spread of information and the growth of the men's movement.

And when it comes specifically to gender relations, they also lie in disempowering government (the enemy of all men) in the area of intimate relationships, jiggering the gender ratio and destroying most of the burgeoning abuse industry.

And with regard to the gender ratio issue, I do not want to receive any more emails concerning the notion that if there were 15% more women than men then men would be further disempowered.

This is just not the case.

For example - and generally speaking - a bunch of 20 men would not find it very hard to exert huge power over 23 women; should they desire to do such a thing. Further, the power that these men could exert would actually be LESSENED if there were also 23 of them! 

And it would lessen even further if there were 26 of them!

In other words, up to a point, the more men that there are, the less power over the women do they have.

No. Not in every single circumstance that one can imagine.

Yawn.

But, on balance, in the main, and on the whole, this would be the case in most of the circumstances that actually occur in the real world.

Loosely speaking, and within limits, the fewer men that there are, the more power over the women will they have.

 no more emails please suggesting that a 15% surfeit of females would inevitably disempower men

So, no more emails please suggesting that a 15% surfeit of females would inevitably disempower men; because this is utter nonsense.

And, presumably, it derives from the simplistic notion that men and women compete with each other. Well, yes they do, to some extent, but nowhere nearly to the same extent as is the competition among themselves.

Men, by and large, compete with men, not with women.

They also compete for women.

And they are also hugely influenced by women, in one way or another.

And the same sort of thing can be said about women vis-a-vis men.

As a result of these three factors - and without going into detail - in the real world, 20 men would have relatively much more power - both individually and collectively - in comparison to 23 women than would 26 men.

Fundamentally, with 20 men and 23 women, the men would need to compete less with each other while the women would need to compete more. And if such an imbalance was reflected throughout the whole of society, the effect would be enormous.

And, while on this subject, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that the more that men are happy with their lot, the more happy will everyone else tend to be. There can surely be very little doubt about this.

As such, if it is also the case that men would be happier if they were in a minority, then there is absolutely no strong reason not to head into this direction. And if there were any problems that did arise from this, then, firstly, it seems likely that they would be exceedingly minor, and, secondly, so what?

So, there might be some problems!

Big!

Deal!

You deal with the problems.

That's what you do!

And the official view of this website, henceforth, is that jiggering the gender ratio to provide a 15% surfeit of women would make people much happier.

The Women Will Always Out Vote The Men

Angry Harry

I just made a donation in the hopes it will further the WONDERFUL work you are doing...my most fervent desire is to achieve financial self-sufficiency so that I may spend my days, full-time, advancing the same cause. I can think of no better gift of philanthropy to society.

I do have a question for you: You've often advocated intervening in the male/female birthrate ratio to someday engineer a world in which women outnumber men, and have cited the positive impact this relative supply/demand imbalance would have on men's lives.

But my overwhelming fear, given women's propensity to vote for even worse candidates than men do, is that we'd end up in a world run by nanny-state power grabbers who feel they "know best" what society needs, rather than the empowering, liberating politicians we need most desperately. Have you considered this in your view, and if so how do you reconcile it?

Kind regards,

T

Hello T

Firstly, thank you indeed for your kind donation. It is **very much** appreciated.

And I couldn't agree more with these sentiments of yours ... "my most fervent desire is to achieve financial self-sufficiency so that I may spend my days, full-time, advancing the same cause. I can think of no better gift of philanthropy to society."

With regard to your question concerning any major problems that men might have to endure if, by arrangement, they were significantly fewer in number than women, I have to say that I do not really think that there would be many problems worth worrying too much about if this situation was actually brought about.

I keep racking my brains over this issue and watching the viewpoints concerning it discussed occasionally in various men's groups, but I never come across any arguments that really carry much weight - in my view - because, generally speaking, these arguments seem mostly to presume that nothing else would automatically change - or could purposely be changed - should such a situation come about; the most obvious example being that if there were comparatively fewer men than women in the future then the value of men to women, to men themselves, and to society as a whole, would rise. 

And this would make men more powerful. 

For the most part, jiggering the gender ratio itself is something that very few men's activists seem able to consider properly at the moment. I think that they view such a thing as being so far beyond the realms of possibility that they believe that there is no point in them even addressing it seriously.

 we could start doing this tomorrow if we wanted to.

And yet we could start doing this tomorrow if we wanted to.

Nevertheless, they do quite often discuss issues that are in some way related to a situation wherein there is an excess of women over men. But, once again, these discussions rarely go beyond an adamant refusal to believe that things could be different even if society **chose** to make them different.

For example, if you monitor the various discussions on the pros and cons of polygamy, the pros are mostly hotly countered with little more than simplistic retorts; e.g. of the following kind.

1. One wife is bad enough. Who would want two?

2. Polygamists are often sexual abusers.

3. How could a man afford the alimony in the event of divorce?

And so on.

Well, of course, with regard to any notions similar to those expressed in the first two points above, those who rather like the idea of polygamy do not actually propose that men and women should be **forced** into polygamous marriages against their will! 

And, of course, being pro-polygamy does not mean that one is prepared to tolerate sexual abuse.

And the third point is simply to do with the law - something which is not set in stone.

Laws are made by men and they can always be changed.

Laws are made by men and they can always be changed.

Generally speaking, the arguments brought forth to oppose the notion that a surplus of women would be of benefit seem to me to be extremely weak and based mostly on some kind of inherent prejudice rather than on any rational basis.

Further, given that multiple partnerships and same-sex relationships seem to be quite common these days - despite the lack of legal recognition of them - in many ways it is clear that similar issues are already being addressed **in practice**.

And yet, for example, it is not uncommon to see someone on the men's forums hotly denouncing polygamy on the one hand, while at the same time proclaiming or suggesting elsewhere that sex with many partners - serially or otherwise - is a great idea.

I am not suggesting that these two things are identical, but there does seem to be some kind of moral confusion here.

The implication here, for example, is that for a man to have a string of sexual relationships with many different women, year in year out, is perfectly acceptable, whereas for a man to commit himself to two women is not.

There seems to be something wrong here.

The point I am driving at with regard to your specific question regarding the problems that might ensue if there were more women than men in the population is that these problems are likely to be very small in comparison to the problems of changing people's attitudes towards jiggering the gender ratio in the first place.

And I think that the well-known Monkey and Banana story that follows gives some indication of what is going on.

The Monkey and the Banana

Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with cold water. After a short while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result - all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water.

Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it. Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm!

Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water.

Nevertheless, no monkey ever again gets near the banana.

Well. I cannot personally vouch for the above experiment with regard to monkeys - though the outcomes described in it seem to me to be quite believable. But when it comes to humans they most certainly **do** behave **very often** as the monkeys described above.

The current illegality of ***medical*** marijuana is an example of this.

The medical marijuana is the banana that no-one is allowed to reach for.

Simply because it isn't allowed!

And this is partly why a large section of the population supports the view that medical marijuana should be illegal.

As in the case of the monkeys, there is no real thought concerning why this particular banana - medical marijuana - should remain out of people's reach.

And the same kind of processes seem to be involved when it comes to issues such as polygamy or to altering the gender ratio - and to many other 'moral' issues as well.

They immediately elicit hostile reactions based on precious little thought.

And part of the solution, of course, is to try to encourage people to open their minds a little wider so that they can better appreciate the various possibilities rather than remain blind to them.

But there is also another way to change people's minds - and probably a far better one in practice. And this is to alter the way that people think about certain issues through a process of indoctrination. And this is where the real answer to your specific question lies.

Your fear is that if there are significantly more women voters than men voters in the future then women will dictate the future to the detriment of men. But the way to avoid this is to ensure that 'men' influence so much the way that people think that, quite simply, the people end up voting for policies that 'men' want. In such a situation, women would not vote for policies that are detrimental to 'men'.

 for the past four decades or so, the feminists and the politically correct have dominated the media

For example, for the past four decades or so, the feminists and the politically correct have dominated the media and, as a result, they have been able to influence very heavily the thoughts, beliefs and values of the population. But if, in the future, 'men' begin to dominate the psychology of the people through the media (and through other things) then the people - both men and women - will be influenced to vote accordingly. In other words, if 'men' dominate the psychology of the people then the people will vote for policies, politicians and parties that cater for the needs and desires of 'men'.

At the moment, however, we are dominated not by 'men' but by 'feminism', 'political correctness', 'nationalism', 'consumerism' - and goodness knows what else.

And the point that I am trying to make with regard to your specific question is this.

Once 'men' have acquired sufficient dominance to achieve a jiggering of the gender ratio they will **already** have the power to save us from having to live "in a world run by nanny-state power grabbers who feel they 'know best'" etc etc. and they will **already** have the power to influence women away from voting for policies, politicians and parties that are detrimental to the well-being of 'men'.

In a nutshell: If men have the power to jigger the gender ratio then, in my view, they already have enough power to avoid the possible pitfalls suggested by your good self.

Indeed, in such a situation, politicians and parties that acted against the interests of 'men' would end up being so undermined that they would cease to be visible or relevant.

And so, generally speaking, ...

Step One is for 'men' to take control of the media and, hence, take control of the way in which people think.

Step Two is for 'men' to open their eyes to the **many** benefits that would accrue to societies that had a surplus of women and to bring such a situation about.

At the moment, however, Step Two seems somewhat harder to achieve than Step One!

Monkeys and Bananas!

LOL!

 "Hey, I want to improve the world for **me**"

However, when 'men' finally begin to say to themselves, "Hey, I want to improve the world for **me**," and they also realise that the world would be a much more pleasant place for them and for their loved ones if there was a surplus of women and, further, that this is something that they can actually achieve, and, further, that they have every right and many good reasons to bring this surplus about, then, my guess is that they will conspire to bring about this surplus.

After all, why not?

And if they dominate the thought processes of the general population then, surely, they will have their way.

At the moment, however, men still do not value themselves - or see themselves - as 'men'. And very rarely do they focus their minds on trying to make the world a better place for 'men'.

And yet if men focused their attention on this notion, nearly everything else would fall into place.

 even if men simply refused to treat other men badly then there would be far less violence around.

For example, even if men simply refused to treat other men badly then there would be far less violence around. There would be fewer wars. Fewer people would be cheated or harmed. Major and minor aggravations would all diminish. The benefits for everyone would be positively enormous. And there would be a wholesale change for the better in the way that the entire world operated.

It's so f##ing simple.

And yet what we have to endure is the complete opposite thanks to the self-serving machinations of feminists, governments, the abuse industry and many other groups.

These groups - these huge powerful organisms - are continually and purposely fuelling hatred towards men - and, hence, between men - thus forever stirring up more problems for everybody.

I'll say that again.

These groups are continually and purposely fuelling hatred towards men - and, hence, between men - thus forever stirring up more problems for everybody.

But if men can take control over the media and invade the consciousness of the people so that the needs and desires of 'men' can be put at the top of the agenda then the enemies of 'men' will very quickly begin to collapse.

Furthermore, given that when it comes to the needs and desires of 'men', an increased availability of women will almost certainly be a high priority, when 'men' do finally take control over the media - which they will - then it will surely not be too long before the gender ratio starts to be jiggered. 

Well. Let's hope so!

Thank you again T.

Harry 

Also see,

The Year is 2052