If we accept the Hunter/Gatherer paradigm, we must also accept the very different forms of attentiveness and perception implicit in each set of behaviors. Given that sexual morphology determines efficiency in enacting these roles, males by default assume the role of Hunters and females that of Gatherers. Each sex in turn, embodies the distinct perceptual mindset relevant to the task.
Hunting is an endeavor concerned with realizing a specific outcome over time. It involves strategy, the ability to organize behavior based on the hypothetical spatial configuration of objects and events – including the subject’s own relationship to them – in the future.
It is invariably a group venture in which several Hunters coordinate and defer to one another in physical pursuit of a common goal. Communication is specific to that intent. The goal is a sentient organism or group of organisms mindful of their own mortality; hunting is therefore an activity, characterized by stealth. Stealth involves patience, concealment, and deception – the ability to represent circumstances in ways they are not.
Hunting entails physical strength, speed, agility, manual dexterity and the impetus to devise more efficient ‘technological’ means for increasing the possibility of success. It is a feedback dynamic that constantly strives to update and improve its methods. The drive for innovative thinking is an essential, biologically determined, Hunter characteristic.
The Hunter is also mindful of his own mortality. Strategy concerns success and failure, and necessarily incorporates the idea of physical risk. It is a competitive endeavor, not only involving the threat from other predator species, but more significantly, from other out-group human males. The inherent unpredictability of resources makes human-to-human conflict inevitable. Wariness of out-group males is fundamental to the Hunter mindset.
A mutual endeavor involving the possibility of injury or death intensifies all aspects of cooperation, promoting ideas of camaraderie, loyalty, mutual accountability, and altruistic self-sacrifice in the defense of others. It evokes the concept of bravery. Hunting is democratic, it encourages critical trust and deference to an agreed upon idea. It also results in a particular form of humor, a means for sublimating failure, injury and fatality with respect to success and its rewards.
A successful hunt culminates in the death of the prey; killing and pleasure become synonymous. As a realized intellectual and visceral anticipation of future possibility, it represents a tension release mechanism analogous to orgasm.
None of these behavioral characteristics are manifested in the process of Gathering.
Gathering does not involve strategic thinking with respect to potential physical risk. It is an immediate ‘arms’ length’ process involving food sources that do not move or reconfigure with possible life or death consequences.
As historical records, and the few contemporary remnants of the Hunter/Gatherer paradigm suggest, women’s role in gathering is augmented by the simultaneous need for care of children and other family members. Females represent the locus of the tribe or extended family group around which male activity revolves. It is the hub to which the Hunter returns. Both food-gathering and childcare are activities requiring focus on immediate events, unlike the wider spatial orientation required by hunting. It is above all an organizational process: the efficient consolidation of food-gathering and preparation, the provision of material comforts in the living/sleeping environment, and the providing of physical and emotional care for all members of the family.
Hunter/Gathering is a cooperative system in which two very different ways of seeing compliment and encourage each other to increase the social range of the group. The center incentivizes the perimeter to expand and vice versa. Reciprocating sexual/emotional reinforcement increases the drive towards technological innovation on the part of males, as its material benefits increase the freedom of females to extend their organizational range beyond the home. It is a process contingent on biologically determined behavioral differences.
Hunters are innately aggressive providers, protectors and innovators, Gatherers, innate nurturers and organizers.
Current attempts to equate male/female intellectual and physical capabilities reference contemporary Hunter/Gathers, including chimpanzees and the Aeta tribe of the Philippines. Aeta women are not only more efficient at hunting we are told, but when they hunt with men, the level of success may improve. Percentage statistics are provided as proof! The social dynamic between male and female chimpanzees and the Aeta, however, did not result in the technological means for communicating such statistics. As yet there are no chimpanzees writing computer code and no Aetas walking on the moon.
The individuals compiling these anthropological conjectures are heirs to the European Hunter/Gatherers of Lascaux and Chauvet, not the jungles of Africa and the Philippines. It is the unique conditions of post Ice Age Europe and the resulting male/female dynamic of cooperation that led to the technological benefits and material comforts that allow for these observations.
The search for examples of women performing as well as men implies that such facts have not been considered before, have not been acknowledged, or have even been suppressed by ‘male dominated’ anthropological history. It conforms to the political agenda that women have only now been given the opportunity to expose these omissions, the opportunity that is, to “…redress the balance.” Having ‘established’ that such a discrepancy exists, it follows syllogistically that women must necessarily be able to participate in any activity that had previously been considered a strictly male prerogative.
In her questioning of Defense Secretary nominee General Mathis, Democratic congresswoman Kirsten Gillebrand insisted that he guarantee the continued inclusion of women and LGBTQ individuals in the armed forces. Mathis responded that his mandate was to create as “lethal a force” as possible and whatever individuals fit that criterion would be considered. This was clearly not the answer that was needed. “Armed forces” covers a wide range of activities some of which women may be capable of performing, but implied in the demand was that they are also equally qualified for combat roles.
Media and entertainment promote the image of female combative parity. ‘Action dramas’ show women in armor firing bows from galloping horses and physically confronting men one-to-one. Women do battle alongside men, work high-tech machinery, drive tanks, fly war planes, lead cavalry charges, engage men in fist fights and win. Such ideas have no basis in reality. If there were no differences between male and female physical capabilities, sexes would not perform separately in the Olympics. Would-be female boxing champions would have to compete against the likes of Mike Tyson.
Female movie ‘warriors’ are actresses, they quit at the end of the day and go home to all the conveniences of a comfortable, modern, secure female lifestyle: to an environment in which they are culturally protected from violence, much less one in which they have to fight to survive. A woman who has been protected all her life from being HIT, cannot possibly have the same perspective on violence as a male who has not.
The most efficient members of every military force in history have been males in their physical prime. They are not only physically more capable but also embody the biologically imprinted aggressive mindset and sense of strategy and purpose that underlies it. Most significantly, fighting in defense of the group is not an option for males. When the ‘Mongol hordes’ show up on the front lawn, males have no choice but to confront them. Unlike females, they have no one else to ‘fall back on.’
When an activity is optional, it cannot possibly be invested with the same life or death urgency to succeed as that which is not.
In a dire combat situation, a fit, two hundred pound human male benefits most from an equivalent male to support him. There are no human females with those characteristics. In the proposed modern (Western) military, he might instead find himself reliant on a one-hundred-thirty/forty pound female who by sheer statistical probability might be suffering from menstrual undermining, and in all likelihood (also based on statistics) be on anti-depressant medication. The chance that a female will perform at less than optimum efficiency in a combat situation – even compared to other females – is exponentially greater than it is for a male. This does not constitute “as lethal a force” as possible.
The dismissing and undermining of essential male differences begins with a (Western) educational system more and more predicated on the idea that boys should be treated as unruly, badly behaved girls. They should be forced to comply with the more acquiescent characteristics of girls and innovative non-conformity treated as an anti-social aberration to be demeaned, shamed and corrected – and, if ‘necessary,’ medicated. Competitive sports between males are essential to instilling the values of strategy, group cooperation, winning and defeat, and understanding the limits of endurance and pain, yet the trend is to involve an equal representation of females. Some schools insist there can be no winners at all, since it causes anxiety to those who lose. This may allow for equal female participation, but it also dumbs down the drive towards technological innovation that is integral to the male competitive mindset.
Technological innovation is the envisioning of a possible outcome over time. It is strategic thinking predicated on risk: an attempt to improve the means for cultural survival in which physical and intellectual wellbeing is committed to an idea, even though it may result in failure, humiliation or worse. For every Wright brothers there are a thousand Wrong brothers, many of whom die in the attempt.
Innovation is the antithesis of correctness. No amount of ‘Straight As,’ BAs, or MAs can simply make it happen. Neither of the Wright brothers finished high school, nor earned diplomas, an idea consistent with many of history’s great innovative minds.
Equality of opportunity is not equality of means. Reducing gender to sameness, averages physical, cultural, and spiritual potential and destroys the mutually reinforcing, sexual dynamic of expansion. It removes the essential differential on which all life, all systems for improvement of circumstance depend.
Contrary to wishful thinking, the life or death conditions the Hunter mindset must confront have not changed since the beginning. War, like weather, is an ongoing condition: it has lulls and moments of extreme violence but it does not begin neither does it end. The Western preoccupation with “correctness” and “balance” is not being embraced by every culture on the planet simply because the planet is not determined by such qualities. It is a reality defined by scale not sameness: bigger/smaller, stronger/weaker, faster/slower. To ‘disarm’ oneself in light of the fact is to arm one’s enemies.
Western culture, particularly in Europe, is now faced with the most acute military threat since the Second World War. Compromising the “lethality” of its response by insisting on equal female participation in its military is short sighted. Deliberately emasculating its males and undermining its dynamic of technological innovation, is cultural suicide.
So far, so good.