Human beings are descended from primates. Except for one or two radical changes, human beings are little different than the apes living in the jungle, (Desmond Morris, The Naked Ape page 39, 48-49). Primates like apes, monkeys, gorillas etc, live in an environment to which they are perfectly adapted. They have no predators; they have more food than they could possibly eat, as Morris says:
“The static food is always there, just waiting to be plucked and eaten. All that is necessary is for the animal to move from one feeding place to another, as their tastes change, or as the fruits come in and out of season. No food storage takes place except, in a very temporary way, in the bulging cheek pouches of certain monkeys.” Page 29.
and they have no territory to defend. In other words, they live in a paradise. And yet, primates live in a constant state of conflict. They show almost no cooperation and impose their willful domination through fear and violence and coerce one another tyrannically, This would seem irrational; they do not suffer from over population, starvation or exterior threats. If a monkey is hungry, it simply reaches out and grabs the nearest piece of fruit, “… lazily reaching out to the end of the branch for a luscious ripe fruit…” they don’t need to worry about finding a place to sleep because they sleep wherever they just happen to be; they move, at most, a third of a mile a day. Their lives consist of eating and sleeping in what would basically be called an idyllic existence. But it is not so. It is an endless power struggle with one alpha man and one alpha female and the rest of the group constantly appeasing them by voluntarily displaying their inferiority. This instinct has remained in primates and human beings for millions of years. It is deeply ingrained and probably the oldest instinct concerning one in relation to others as John Dewy says “The deepest urge in nature is the desire to be important.”
Then, our ancestors left the forest and headed out into the savanna. Things were different. No longer was there food in plenitude. No longer were there no predators. The basic needs of survival were no longer met. Our ancestors had to make an effort to survive and survival now became the sole occupation of life. They had to imitate their neighbors who were also their chief rivals for food and a danger in themselves: the hunting carnivores, Morris page 21. The big cats like lions, tigers cheetahs, cougars and leopards and the wild canines like wolves, hyenas, dingoes and dogs who all evolved perfectly to adapt to their environments like the apes to theirs. The changes that our ancestors underwent when they became hunters, changes which remain in our genes and memes today, Morris:
“This is the manner, then, in which the hunting ape took on the role of a lethal carnivore and changed his primate ways accordingly. I have suggested that they were basic biological changes rather then mere cultural ones, and the new species change genetically in this way. You may consider this an unjustified assumption. You may feel -such is the power of cultural indoctrination- that the modifications could easily have been made by training and the development of new traditions. I doubt this. One only has to look at the behavior of our species at the present day to see that this is not so. …The fundamental pattern of behavior laid down in our early days as hunting apes still shine through all our affairs…” Page 39,
They are too many to name here. Suffice it to say that the nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle was much more dangerous and required cooperation, something barely existent in the primate world. It requires planning, risk taking and the division of labor. The leader of the group now had to affirm his leadership through merit and win the respect of the subordinate members of the group instead of leading through fear and brutality like an ape as Fromm states “…there are many kinds of work which cannot be done properly if nothing but fear is behind the obedience” page 22.
Hunting requires goals and goals presuppose morality because everything is judged to be either pragmatic (Good) or detrimental (Bad/Evil) in regards to the goal in question. Morality, cooperation, monogamy, selflessness, parenting, philosophy and love, all come from the carnivorous hunting way of life as Morris says “He had now really left his forest of Eden. He was an ape with responsibilities.” Page 22. The harsh reality of constantly facing the abyss, constantly struggling and fighting against the odds in order to survive engendered all of the humanistic traits. We suppose here that what western philosophers have deemed irrational and rational can be translated as primate and hunter. The very nature of this lifestyle produces a sense of purpose in the instincts of the group: we must all work together to survive. Every facet of life had a purpose and a reason. This logical instinct will come into play later. The greatest effect of this change was the imbuing in our ancestors of a sense that there must always be a reason for everything.
Hunting grounds and subsequent sedentary living created a fixed territory inhabited and defended by a particular group organized and moralized for survival. This creates a strong sense of group identity refined and perpetuated via memeplexes such as religion, language and culture. After a time, the groups of hunting ape each became slightly different from the other groups and each other’s existence could constitute a rival for the acquisition of food supplies or even a threat in themselves. With this, something interesting happened. As people identified themselves to their tribe, the primordial ape instinct of domination was promoted from an individual basis to a group basis. Person against person still existed within the tribe (and still does) but it also presented itself as tribe against tribe; the very concept of a discriminating group with its own territory is alien to primates just as inter-species competition is almost unknown to hunting carnivores. There is some small conflict but groups do not engage in war between themselves as humans do, as Morris puts when describing Hyenas: “There is considerable aggression between clans if wandering individuals are caught off their own clan territory, but there is little aggression between members of any one clan.” Page 27. Tribes of human beings actually attempt to annihilate one another and also fight between individuals inside the tribe. This results from the hybrid instinct of the ape domination instinct and the hunter mentality, Morris “The point is that a major shift of this sort produces an animal with a dual personality” page 23, which is the basis for the Need for Sacrifice that we shall encounter later.
What our ancestors created was a thoroughly human instinct to segregate into groups and want to dominate each other as if the groups were individual primates. But the hunter lifestyle, with goals which presuppose morality, planning which presupposes reason and logic and the hunt which presupposes a hunted, added a new twist to the equation. With the primate instinct, the hunter lifestyle and an already highly developed brain, our ancestors found themselves rationalizing reasons and motives for their actions. Simply obeying their instincts in order to survive wasn’t enough anymore. The primate instinct to dominate others had to be explained. Things needed to make sense. When a tribe experiences its modified ape domination, its hunter instincts are telling it to find a reason for what it is doing and the ape mind isn’t developed enough to do this anyway. This is where pretext originates. Our instincts tell us to dominate others which logically requires a reason, so any pretext is used. Sometimes, the aggressor will commit an act of war pretending to be the victim in order to attack them and ironically claiming to be the victim for in the hunter mind, one must be right in all things. This is why, in a person to person domination, the aggressor offers no justification or reason for the aggression. For instance, the victim might ask: “Why are you doing this?” To which, if the aggressor even replies, the aggressor will reply: “I don’t know.” or “Because I can.” or “Because I hate you”. Very often, the aggressor will repeat the words of the victim in a whining voice such as: “Why are you doing this to me?” or “Please stop!” The aggressor has no real reason, he or she is simply responding to his or her instinct; his or her genes, Morris “But young animals of all kinds, helpless ones or sick ones, were all there for the taking, and the first step on the road to major meat-eating was an easy one.” Page 20.
But, when a third person enters the picture and creates a group, suddenly, the aggressor invents a reason to justify his of her actions or persuade the newcomer to join him or her. Once again, the tribe presupposes a reason and morality.
How does this relate to women? I suggest that since the females did not participate in the hunt and instead remained at the home-base to rear infants and gather supplies from nearby sources, the development of their mentality did not benefit from the moralizing and rationalizing effects of hunting. Human female psychology has retained the traits of the pre-hunting primates: the instinct to dominate, lack of reasoning, selfishness etc. The shopping instinct is the modern manifestation of gathering i.e. just as females would trek into foliage and scrutinize available resources by judging quality, foraging for hidden valuables and placing their acquisitions in a pouch hanging from the body, the modern female rejoices in time spent with her friends pouring over a selection of goods, trying things on, searching for deals and carrying the lot back home just as the modern male rejoices in time spent with his friends organizing themselves into problem solving units based on skill and merit expressed through sports, games, construction, research etc.
It is apparent that subjects requiring spatial ability, logical reasoning, mathematics etc. are characteristically masculine, this is why, historically, women have not participated in activities associated with Civilization. Even today, we see a disproportional amount of females entering such fields as Education, Nursing, Secretarial Work etc. and not entering such fields as STEM etc.
How does this effect human relationship between men and women? Staying at home and processing the resources brought back by the male has engendered a sense of entitlement observed in the female. The irrational, emotional nature of women casts expectations upon men which are taboo to question for fear of triggering said irrational and emotional nature. The lack of team-work and loyalty gained through hunting engenders hypergamy and the primate domination instinct compels women to continuously abuse men, no matter how loving or obedient and despise any sings of male happiness in order to establish authority over them.
The primate domination instinct also explains women’s obsession with domination and submission; we all know how much women love being dominated physically, even domineering women will demand aggression and abuse during sex, subbing from the top, as they say. In fact, PUA’s have written extensively on this subject: women simply can’t respect a man they cannot fear, hence the continual provocation which, if it goes too far, can be remedied by calling the police and eventually incarcerating the man leaving the woman free to play the drama-victim and satisfy her ego.
By encouraging, provoking and selectively breeding aggressive “Alpha Males” women negatively effect the evolution of the human race as they literally bring out the worst in men and not, as the traditional, romantic notion that: “Woman brings out the best in Man” would delude us into believing. It is easier to understand why women were discouraged from participating in societal decision making (although that never stopped them from imposing their militant morality e.g. Prohibition) and why they were denied suffrage when considering that women really want what’s bad for them.