There are two factors that affect outcomes for people: genetics and environment. This is the perpetual question: What causes people to act the way they do – is it nature or nurture, and how do those two things interact? This post is not to answer that question; rather, it’s to point out that when you control both nature and nurture, you control everything.
When women control their own lives, obviously they control the environment their children grow up in and the people they grow up around, so that takes care of environment. And when women control their own lives, they choose which men to have children with, which means they can select for the traits they like, and breed any traits they don’t like out of the population, so that takes care of genetics. When women control their own lives, they decide the entire fate of humanity.
Control of men’s reproduction, by contrast, impacts nothing. Men’s reproductive capacity is functionally limitless, unlike women’s, and when a resource is without scarcity, there is no need to control who gets to have it. And there is no natural cost of reproduction for a man, so men do not need to be incentivized to reproduce. Imagine if a woman could have a child at the cost of an orgasm. From an evolutionary standpoint, she’d be a fool to ever refuse to produce a child. The only time when there is a cost to the father is if there is a trade – if the woman requires a commitment of resources, time, or exclusivity (to limit his distribution of resources and time to other women’s children) from him in exchange for choosing him as the father. But if both man and woman are acting independently, and the woman chooses him not because of what he can do for her but because she genuinely thinks he is the best choice from an eugenic standpoint, then the natural cost of reproduction to the father is nothing.
Women have no need to control men’s reproduction, because a man has hit the Darwinian jackpot when a woman chooses him to father her child, and he has no reason to refuse unless she requires commitments in exchange for choosing him. While a woman would have an endless list of reasons to say no to a random man who wanted to have a child with her and then skedaddle, a man wouldn’t have any adaptive reason to say no to a random woman who wanted to have a child with him and then skedaddle. A man who said no to free reproduction would be damning his genetic survival for no reason, while for women, there is no such thing as “free reproduction.” Even donating eggs, the closest equivalent for a woman to fathering a child, requires major surgery.
Likewise, women have no need to control men in order to control the environment their children grow up in. They just need to have control over their own lives. A man doesn’t even know he is a father unless he either has a woman imprisoned, or she deigns to tell him. The mother is always known; the father is known at the woman’s pleasure (or under absolute patriarchy, and even then there are cuckoos in the nest).
In a social system where everyone has their natural power – with men controlling their own lives and women controlling their own lives – women control the fate of humanity. For the past 5,000 years men have controlled women, and consequently have controlled which women reproduce and which men they reproduce with, and the environment children grow up in, so they have controlled everything that impacts humanity’s outcome. Now with the end of coverture and the increasing social and financial independence of women, the natural power of women is returning to our hands, and we can resume our birthright: the intentional creation and evolution of humanity.