World Conquest In The Service Of The Female

When introduced to the life-cycle of the butterfly, children are usually handed the assumption that the imago is the “real” animal for which the caterpillar and the chrysalis are preparatory stages. This seems obvious to them, since the imago is mobile and attractive while the larva is limited and the pupa is frankly boring. Yet this is by no means the only possible approach. We can just as well consider the imago as being to the animal what the blossom is to the plant – something produced for the sole purpose of reproduction, a set of genitals; in the butterfly’s case, a set of mobile genitals. Equivalent to the root of the plant, therefore, must be the caterpillar, doing much the same, unglamorous, job of resource acquisition. The real reason why we shy away from seeing the caterpillar as the “real” animal, however, may be a desire to avoid seeing how similar to ourselves is this blind muncher. Instead, we could either consider the quest for the “real animal” to be the wrong question, or else decide that the “real animal” is the nigh-immortal DNA that expresses itself in turn as the caterpillar, the chrysalis and the butterfly.

It is a similar perspective that we ought to take to a contemplation of the two human sexes. Just as the imago is the mobile genitalia of the three-stage animal, we might usefully consider the male as the mobile genitalia of the female lineage – devices that these nigh-immortal lineages use to acquire new genes. We should remember that even in the most stigmatised “patriarchal” societies it is the women who plan marriages, and that much of their conversation is everywhere about genetic relationships. As well as being mobile genitalia, cross-fertilising the lineages in accordance with their instructions, the males act as enforcers. They may commit the honour killings of daughters who defy their mothers’ alliance plans, but who really decides on the execution? Honour killings are, within the inherited system, a rational response to family disgrace – whose consequence is that no desirable matches for the other females of the family can now be arranged. This in turn means that the other womenfolk will have an objective interest in the honour killing; so that one might even ask whether the patriarch is acting as their agent. The mothers are no doubt delighted to have the feminists of Western societies teach that it was the patriarchs wot dunnit and that they themselves are also Victims; the murdered daughter, on the other hand, may know who was really calling the (literal) shots, but she is no longer here to bear witness.

The same applies to non-homicidal claustration of women; in a system where “guaranteed purity” offers the ability to marry up the social scale, the interest is shared by the whole family, and pace Hollywood, in the real world it is the women who conduct the lineage politics and fret about the minutiae of status. As in so many other cases, what at first sight appears to be about gender is actually about class.

As well as one male enforcing the commands of the matriarchs in one family, we should consider a group of males enforcing the will of the group of matriarchs that we call a “village”, and so on up the scale to grand strategy. Of course, women suffer in war, but then so do men; the latter fact is never adduced as disproof of the fact that men fight wars, so why should the former serve as disproof of the possibility that women might instigate them? As for the benefits, women derive the same economic benefits from a victorious war as do men; loot, slave labour, lower prices, subsidised settlement on the lands of the losers, enhanced employment and reproductive opportunities for their surviving husbands and sons, and so on and so forth. Although the death in war of their compatriot men threatens them with loss of marriage prospects, this may be offset by the reduction in the female population of the conquered country. Above all, no one expects to lose the war they start, and all motives should be considered in the light of the expectation of victory. Getting raped by the victors, therefore, is not an objection to the thesis of female militarism, since this is not expected to happen.

Leave a Reply