What Do We Need Men For?

This is a philosophical question: I leave reproduction issues, those technical details, aside. The latter are in the process of being scientifically solved. We can imagine a society without men, so to ponder why we would need them is of the essence.

More urgently, the obverse problem has appeared: in many societies, boys are prefered to girls, and a vast gender gap of the most ominous type has surged.

However, in the self-doubting West, conflicts, for some reasons, is not as popular as it used to be, and men are supposed to be war-like and disruptive. Why not getting rid of them? (Whether this elimination has been proposed or not, is irrelevant. In the light of the campaign waged against many a virile personality trait, it is pretty obvious that the ideal of the Greek superhero of old, the hyper virile hoplite, is supposed to be extinguished.)

With Women Like That, Who Needs Men?

With Women Like That, Who Needs Men?

[Blue Mountains.]

I asked one of my friends, a mountain guide. She generally climbs, when not guiding, with two other very strong climbers, who happen to be women. As I contemplated them, I wondered, indeed, what we needed men for. Could not that trio prove that women could do all what men could?

The question is not new. In the 1950s, when the Himalaya was immensely dangerous, French women constituted an entirely feminine expedition to climb some unconquered summit. However, mother nature decided otherwise, and smashed the arrogant creatures’ base camp below thousands of tons of snow.

My friend the guide told me the most ferocious boss she ever had was female. Moreover, although she agreed that men were pretty useless, at first sight, and thus that women could do without men, there was nevertheless something good about having males around. Women were pushed to go further when men were around.

The reciprocal reasoning has long been made by the chivalry, and the nascent romantic tradition. The Sixteenth Century French poet Ronsard pointed out, by claiming that love for the other gender was most transcendental:

Et moi sans faire long séjour

Je m’en vais de nuit et de jour

Au lieu d’où plus on ne retourne”.

Si est-ce que je ne voudrois

Avoir été ni roc ni bois,

Antre, ni onde, pour défendre

Mon corps contre l’âge emplumé,

Car ainsi dur je n’eusse aimé

Toi qui m’as fait vieillir, Cassandre.

ODES, IV, 10

Trans PA.:

Without sojourning long,

I am going, night and day,

To this place one does not come back from,

Yet, I would not have wanted

To be neither rock nor wood,

Cave, or Wave, to defend

My Body against feathered age,

As thus hard I would not have loved

You who made me age, Cassandra.

In other words: love is what makes life worthy. We pay for love, with life. That sounds a bit crazy, thus having crazy relations with the other half of humanity may help. Courtly love, which was invented in “love courts” set by women around the Twelfth Century had made the most ethereal form of love the most valuable value to guide humanity with.

My friend the mountain guide made the same point pragmatically: inter-gender relationships are more stimulating than having them not.

What the two genders do, is that they force us out of our mental box, or more exactly, our logic.

Can we rephrase this more… logically? Yes! The (slightly) different neurohormonalities, and maybe even neurologies, of men and women give us different logics. Call them L1 and L2. So by having women we get L1 (say) and by having men we get L2. So, with two genders, we get two logics. At first sight, that’s already twice richer than just one logic.

Moreover, by making L1 and L2 interact, we get more than just one or the other. Actually we get more than the union of L1 with L2. What we get, at the very least is the smallest logic containing both L1 and L2. We get META(L1, L2), comprising the meta discourse of L1 on L2 and of L2 on L1.

This is the big argument for neurohormonal diversity. And it can be generalized: the main mental reason for having physical exercise, adventures, or simply dreams, or poetry is that they create different neurohormonal states, and thus different logics.

This general reasoning of neurohormonal diversity generating logical diversity extends also to hermaphrodites and so-called “transgender” creatures.

Some may object that I talked about “logic”, and not of what men and women differ the most about, emotion. But my notion of “logic” covers “emotion”. “Emotion” is what gives meaning to logic, by assigning “truth values”, which are defined by practice, to generalized semiotics (in particular generalized semantics).

But this is a subject for another time. Passions, the supreme emotions, propel reason beyond the reasonable, and in this progress, our ever more transcendental nature. We need men and women, because we need ever more, and never less. And maybe violence of men is part of these riches, and the softness of women what is needed to make the Dark Side sustainable.

If advanced animals can be characterized by their Machiavellian intelligence, nature’s wisdom can be even more so. To have two genders with different ways of looking at, processing the world, and even being with the world, gives us stereoscopic vision for the mind’s eye. The mind of our culture, our all encompassing world culture, which can even drive biological evolution itself (another subject for the future).

Vive les  différences!  

Patrice Ayme’


Tags: , , , , , ,

10 Responses to “What Do We Need Men For?”

  1. Kevin Berger Says:

    And yet, the fashionable trend is one toward “indifferentiation” (sp?) today, with all the attendant pathologies that this generates, – mostly, and I apologize to once again fall prey to my pet obsession, in the Anglo world, USA foremost (you know the types, from the progressive “gender”, “triggers”, “LGBT”, hell, even the construct of “gays” as an identity as opposed to homosexuality… to the rightwing “men rights activists”, “red pillers”, “pick-up artists”,…).
    Kind of a post-modern, whatever that means, Victorian obsession about sex and bodily functions, spiced with the “social networks era” and assorted idiocies (I’ll throw Indra-vurna a bone here, and mention the heavily Jewish entertainment industry, and its tastes toward transgression, anal fixation,…)
    And I certainly know all about pathologies and insecurity about manhood, virility and all.
    Honest, one would think that as a specie, we’d be all happier sticking to the hunter-gatherer format hardwired into us, plus whatever cultural/tribal gloss.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I think there is what looks like a kind of feminization, but is truly an enfeeblement of the mood. That’s part of the general move towards plutocratization, and transforming the People into Sheeple…
      The bosses are generally older men (thus with dysfunctional sexual apparatus, and related resentment…). Interestingly they have got to have “penis envy” (to borrow unabashedly from Sigmund Freud). Thus some of their bellicose mood may be just a compensation mechanism… On top of that, they turn into women, witness their rosy cheeks, from male (precursor) hormones reconverted into female ones…

      • Kevin Berger Says:

        En effet, l’époque est franchement et malheureusement émolliente. “Malheureusement”, parce qu’en cas de coup dur, collectivement parlant, il va falloir s’endurcir, et en mettre un grand coup, pour continuer de labourer ce sillon un peu gras.
        En l’état, je vois mal la France de 2015, volontairement défrancisée, acculturée, soumise, divisée à tous niveaux (y compris racial & religieux, désormais), capable d’un “miracle de la Marne”.
        Le contrepoint étant que je vis hors du réel, donc peut-être (sans doute) suis-je trop sévère ou pessimiste.
        En tous cas, il y a vraiment pour moi une impression d’effondrement, de mensonge général, “encore quelques secondes, M. le bourreau”… et encore, d’après l’article que vous avez cité il y a peu, Houellebecq (bon, vous, vous savez l’écrire) semble estimer que la France se débat encore, alors même que le reste est déjà noyé. En même temps, je n’ai pas d’enfants et je suis déjà mort ou presque, tant que j’ai mon petit confort, je m’en fous au fond.

        As for the move toward plutocratization… maybe. The move toward consumerism, hedonism, materialism, for sure. Maybe that’s planned, better atomized, infantilized customers, than citizens, that would be the idea.
        Or maybe it’s because “we” collectively hitched our wagons to the greediest, dumbest, meanest, hick cousins of the (Anglos, again, let’s name names) family, a bit like the Arabs/Muslims and the Saudis. And since they are pure unadulterated Pluto, everything they touch eventually turns to shit, as that shit turns to gold for them.
        So it would not even be a Grand Conspiracy, but, more insultingly, just a natural evolution. A kind of civilizational dementia, the “D” word.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          “Anglos” live on islands (North America, Britain). They feel secure. They don’t need to think too hard. Yet, they control, through much conniving, civilization, so they can afford to be soft and… conniving. The French Republic does not have this luxury.

  2. gmax Says:

    Take out the sexism, get twice the society!

  3. Steverino Says:

    Couldn’t one extend these attributes of logic “versions” to various forms of altered states of consciousness, admittedly to a lesser degree than sex, but of potentially significant, if not possibly of equal, value?

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hi Steverino, and welcome! Yes, you are entirely correct. The argument that different experiences builds different minds, works during any serious physical exertion, not just sex. It also works in just plain dangerous activities, such as hang-gliding, hence their attractiveness. I have argued that this is why people love so much extremely dangerous passions such as wingsuit flying, with its astronomical death rate:

      This is also part of the reason why climbing was often considered a most important approach to philosophy, from China to Africa…

  4. Chris Snuggs Says:

    “Take out the sexism, get twice the society! That’s precisely why less sexist societies forged ahead economically… And will keep on doing so.”

    Chris Snuggs When I was a kid and later young student there wasn’t all this lunatic obsession with isms such as sexism, racism amd ageism, and nor with phobias such as homophobia, or indeed with multiculturalism. Nor did we have millions of Muslims with their unhinged sect. Those times were better. PC liberal idiots have a lot to answer for.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      It actually originated with somewhat unhinged “French Theory“. Levy-Strauss and followers, especially the “anti-colonialist” crowd (who were anything but…) are the source of this unbalance… Through the amplification they were given, not the least in USA universities. I should write an essay on that.

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: