SEARCH FOR THE WOMAN           (CHERCHEZ LA FEMME)           (popular essay)           Chris MYRSKI, 2004       — — —             Abstract:      This is an opus dedicated to emancipation, where is spoken about women, men, and the differences between them, that are not good to ignore, or then, if they are ignored, to what this leads. The topic is old as the world, but until about a century the things were more or less balanced, where nowadays the "beehive rebelled" and the people (the women, as well also the men) became confused. This confusion must cease somewhere to the end (or even the middle) of 21-th century, but because the steady state is influenced by all contemporaries we ought to give some thought to the matter in order to find whether we influence it in the right way or not. The provided here evidences are logical, as also ... etymological (because the words reflect the ways people that use them think), and also philosophical, though up to a certain extent metaphysical (for this is not a scientific treatise but popular examination). Well, the author is a man, but with regard to the objectivity of observation he tries to be more or less bisexual; as far as this isn't easy so we have said in the beginning that this is an opus, but if you reach to the poetical Appendix at the end you will surely understand what, still, is his hidden wish.         — — —           1. The emancipation      The French understand, if not anything else, then at least love and sex, so that one must believe them when they say: Cherchez la femme (as cause for all evil things on this world), more so because to this truth people have come millenniums back, for to reflect it in the Bible where Adam and Eve were thrown out of Paradise because of the sin of Eve (though, if we begin to search for the reason for this, then Adam has asked for her before the dear God, but then, if we continue to search the motives for everything, then it turns that the guilty one is not Adam but God, because He has mixed the pap, or the mud, of life). Well, some emancipatess — for this is grammatically correct building of noun of feminine gender from the verb "emancipate" — would have objected, and with right, to this, maintaining that this is masculine assertion, because in those times women have had almost no rights. (But here I must add for the English readers that the salt of the invented word in Bulgarian — "emancipatka" — is that the ending "patka" means ... a goose, she-duck.) This is so, but if something is said by men from this does not follow that it is necessary wrong (as, by the way, if some view was supported by the communists, this does not mean that it was in all cases wrong, as until recently thought, and maybe still thinks, one democratic force — it is meant the Union of Democratic Forces in Bulgaria — which isn't more a force at all). As also the marriage, what is an institution invented by men (because it existed from ancient times), but this does not mean that it was not in interest, most of all, of women, because they are those who want to catch some man and keep him for a long time and only for themselves — in interest (realized or not) of the posterity, but this does not change the truthfulness of the said thought — where the man is like a bee which looks how to pollinate more "flowers" (which, obviously, is feminine atribute and that is why it is spoken about defloration).      All nations (and these now are not only the men, but just the more older, as more experienced and clever, though as much men as well also women), make some associations about women and are well aware what kind of "goods" they are. The Slavs are as if the least offensive, because our woman (zhena in Bulgarian, or zhenshchina in Russian) comes from Greek γυvαικα ('gineka'), where the point is about the gene (or the jin, if we go to the Arabs), i.e. about the kin or gender, and the contempt to the feminine individual is seen only by the ... bitch, for which the Russians have the word suka, which is related to the sucking (sucha, this time in Bulgarian), but in it there is something ancient, something of the cluster of Turkish ... "sus" (what may be taken also as variant of "shsh"-shut). Otherwise on the West there are many examples, say, with the French dame (or madame as my dame), which even in the very French corresponds with their damage, what means to tamp, compact, what isn't a casual relation because also in English the dam is a dike and a feminine animal, and in Russian there is their damba as dike (and where a barrier of a dike is there is a hole or canal behind it), then comes the English damn, what you know well what means and it is related with the demons (but they are usually feminine), and also in German "dämlich" does not mean feminine but silly (though this is because it is something feminine), as also their Dämmerung, what is twilight (as in some hole). (And let us mention that, as far as there are two kings of quotes, the usual double ones are used for citing of how something is written, but when single quotes are used here this means how the word must be read using the characters as mere Latin letters: say: "mine" is read 'main')      We can change the root to "mad-" (where is the mother, for example in Spanish madre, where from, by the way, comes the name of the town Madrid), where we have the English "mad", and if you want also your "muddy" (what isn't exactly what 'mådi' in Bulgarian means — and 'å' must be read as in your "but" — but is something similar, dirty — because these are, sorry, the testicles), what is related with German Made, what is a maggot, worm (something, still, around the genesis, but the contempt is obvious), and — would you believe it — there was some Greece-Homeric μηδεα, what were exactly the woman labia, pudendum! Similarly are the things with the ... hmm, with the hysteria, because it comes from Ancient Greece, where υστερα means exactly uterus, and also follows, origins (and from there, again by the way, is the history), where υστερισμoσ is hysteria, what beyond doubt shows that the hysterias are normal conditions for the beings with "(h)ysterases". Phonetically the things here move around the sound of squeezing (cyst / "kista", and similar words), and this about the uterus must be known to the technicians because they study about a curve called hysteresis, which is exactly an uterus with bent tips (the top one to the right, and the bottom one to the left).      Besides, for everybody understanding English is clear that "miss" as verb means some lack (there's some hole there), but with capital letter this becomes She-Some-Body (and from there also the Missis as, hmm, one with a bigger hole, maybe?). And let us not bother with exact etymologies (from "mister" or master, host, sire), because we speak here about associations, and the people, surely, have some (subconscious) ideas, which exist in Latin, where sine is the preposition "without", but sinus is some bend, fold, curve, even uterus, or bosom, and it must be clear that where is the sinus there is the "sine" (where from is the sinecure job, as such that gives benefits without cura-care — but let me squeeze here that in Bulgarian kur is ..., sorry, penis, so that you may imagine how funny sounds this word there). We shall mention also the known Greek megeras (Μεγαιρα), as bad women, monsters, which there make relation with μαγαρα, what is just garbage, mud, but the root is very old because there was some old Hebrew "megera" as ... to cut with saw, rasp. And if somebody may think that this is another thing then let us add that from here comes Bulgarian magare, what is a donkey, and it is a bad animal (why else should you call it also an ass?), but in addition to this it might be also a saw-horse, and this is a typical expression also for the Russians (who, meaning the men, use to say that their wife has a whole day sawn logs at their head), i.e. this is again something bad, vile, pestering, where the root was present also in the Sanskrit where makara was, this time, some sea monster (maybe a dragon, with serrated spine), and also by the Arabs exists mahara or 'mekiare', what is loading animal (i.e. donkey), and that the donkey-tricks are (as a rule) feminine business is clear to all.      Well, but this author treads in a very masculine way, could say some amancipatess (to vary the word a bit, to the Turkish aman meaning "oh, stop it"), because till now we have said nothing good about the woman; or rather some anti-sexist (-ess), because nowadays on the West they don't speak about emancipation, what (if we do not count, hmm, the "tzipa"-membrane from the word, how it is in Bulgarian) will say that it goes about some detachment (of particles, some emanation) from the influence (or the yoke) of the man, and the women now plead for rejection of the leading role of the sex-gender, so that there to be called sexist is as offensive as to call you pederast (well, till before half a century, because now this is accepted as wholly normal, though not using this word). Ah well, to reject the leading role of the sex is an obvious insanity (dämlich thing), but as far as we all are now "democrats" then everybody can deny whatever he /she likes, as also accept whatever wishes (and the truthfulness, evidently, is not at all related with the official assertions). Because if the sex had not determining significance for our behaviour then the dear God (or the nature — cross out the redundant) would have not invented both sexes, because initially they were not present — say, by the amoebas, and also by the worms exists only one sex. But somewhere from the fishes and above in the evolutionary tree the existence of two sexes becomes necessary, and because they are only two there is no other way for them not to be maximally different (while if they were, say, 17, as it was according to Kurt Vonnegut on the planet Tralfamadore, then the differences maybe would have been smaller).      Be it as it may, let us spit now also at the men, but this is, for the most part, well known, because in Latin malus means bad, evil, harmful, and malum is the evil, where from in French we have their malady and malheur (all some disasters or evils), then the malchance, the malaria if you want, and all this comes from the ... grinding — molo in Latin, where from is your "molar" as grinding toot, or German mahlen as to grind, Bulgarian malåk as small (and also this word), et cetera. In other words, the man grinds, crushes, and so on, and this is the man because in English he is "male", and in Latin the masculine gender is masculinum, but the root comes from ancient times where in old Hebrew the number nine was called "malhut" and symbolized the kingdom (i.e. the autocratic ruling), and here is the ancient deity Moloch, that required many sacrifices in order to be appeased. Only that this may be bad, but there are the women who require it, because there is no epoch in the human society when the women have not liked militaries and fighters. It is true that many intelligent people have considered (and consider) the brute (masculine) force for something bad, about what speaks, say, ... well, the "sophia" or the wisdom in Ancient Greece, which in addition to the sophisticated thinking has given also — you surely can't guess it — the software and the French sofa! Similar "mild" ruling are also the finances — fine thing, this time! Again similar thing is the very civilization, because it is ruling of civil people. So that the masculine can be good or bad depending on the view point, where at the women, starting about a century before and back in all previous times, always have been looked with disapproval (not in sense of some delights in conversing with them, but as at imperfect human beings).      So, now the emancipation came, and if the author is against it, this isn't because he thinks that women should not have equal rights with men in the social life, but for the following reasons. First of all, women are not equal with men, and there is no need, as we say, to bore a hole in the sea, but there is nothing bad in this to have equal rights with men, in order to be able to prove ... their inequality! Id est, there is nothing bad if women work in the mines, or become bodybuilders if they want, but I think this is hardly a proper activity tor them — as a rule, because there are exceptions for each rule, and exactly they make life piquant, in many cases. Or, as Erich Kästner puts it in one place: "Long live the small difference!". We will return to this question also later, but the important thing is to stress here that the equal rights, still, do not mean equal capabilities, though they give better possibilities for personal manifestation there, where is even better to have women instead of men (say, as: teachers, medical doctors and dentists, many clerk's positions, in the services, etc.). In the end, if the women were equal to the men, then why in different sports they compete separately? Or why they retire earlier, when they live even longer than men do?      Secondly, they began to speak about emancipation then and in such countries, when and where this was not necessary, because even without this movement in half of a generation time, more or less, there would have been the same results, and this by initiative of the men (as we have said in the beginning about the marriage). Id est, it does not honour women to "raise voice" when this is not needed, but this, as it seems, is a general human phenomenon, because in the same way, for example, we in Bulgaria have reacted by the falling of communism, what (more than obvious) was initiated by the very communists; similarly also with the many strikes then, when they were not required (from point of view of the situation of the strikers, because now it is not better, but there are no strikes), but the masses wanted to shout a bit, i.e. the people (those without special moral qualities, or the masses, or the weaker ones in some sense) complain not when there are reasons for complaining, but when their voice can be heard. Well, be it as it may, this is a moral question and maybe the author is too hard on the women (to wish for them to be even better than the men), so that let us continue.      Thirdly, and this is the most important, the women even don't want equality (they are subconsciously aware that they are not equal) but want just feminine domination, matriarchy! Well, who does not want to rule (they also the children often twist their parents around a finger), but let us be in clear about the question. If the women as a mass are more susceptible to emotions (to remind you about the hysterias), more partial and unfair, even more silly (when there comes to judgements, not to expressing of wishes), more soft (because the sex, still, determines our behaviour), then there is obvious that it can be no question about returning to matriarchy. We will not return to it not because of the reluctance of the author (he has not yet said that he does not want it, and even would have strongly wished to meet a woman for which to feel convinced that must obey to her, because she, in addition to having everything feminine in her, is also cleverer than him), but because historically looked there was matriarchy in ancient times. And why, you think, then in some tribes have ruled the women? Well, because the life was then too heavy and complicated, and the woman is who gives the life and takes care for its prolongation, i.e., when life is difficult and the survival of the gender or species is endangered then it is right for all to do what the women want. Yeah, but it is not at all so now, and we'll hardly come to such difficult living conditions anymore that to be endangered the gender, more so on the background of the demographic boom in a worldwide scale. Anyway, we shall add more reasons for the absurdity of women's ruling further, when we have discussed more profoundly the question of ruling.      So, and now let us look in more details at           2. The masculine and feminine principles      Already from biblical times and in the Far East people were well aware about the insuperable differences between the man and the woman and have endowed also inanimate objects and natural phenomena with gender properties, what everybody knows, because these are the grammatical genders, that are present in each languages, with exception of the English. For each who has studied English (and I suppose also for those who read this material now) is clear that the absence of genders only simplifies the language, but nonetheless in all other languages the genders exist and people don't think to reject them. Well, there, where the gender is easy to be found, based on the ending of the word (how it is in Bulgarian) one is not often mistaken, and there is some reason to keep them, but in German this isn't so (and, for example, der Löffel is the "he"-spoon, and die Gabel is the "she"-fork, but both end in exactly the same way). In general, according to ancient eastern philosophers, there were two main principles of the world: Yang /Yan /Jang /'Jan' ("he"), and Yin /In /Ing /'In" ("she"), and this view is preserved in many languages till the present day, where for Yang we may mention ... the Russian 'ja' (I), which is also the Italian io, and the French jo, and the German ich, and so on, and here, obviously is meant the man. Where the woman-Yin is to be seen better in German, where making of nouns of feminine gender from such of masculine is performed with the suffix -in (for example, die Lehrerin is she-teacher), but also in general in the preposition "in", which is Latin and means to enter somewhere (where is some hole, in order to be possible to enter there — I beg your pardon for the explanation)! So that, no matter whether we like it or not, but the man's thing is the hard one, the sharp, the penetrating, and the woman's thing is the weak one, the concave, the yielding, and that's that.      But let us have a better look at these principles, beginning with      2.1. The woman's principle.      One of its important characteristics is the conservatism, i.e., prolongation or preservation of the gender, but such as it is, not modified! This is conservatism according to the major goal for the woman (prolongation of the gender), but also of some other pleasures in life, which she grasps as related with this goal, and which may differ in some nuances, but on the whole are one and the same from times immemorial (and some men even say that she has just one wish, but wants that is were performed more often). The woman is this, what the Englishmen call "birth box", but, and I beg a pardon from the women, we may put this also as "walking uterus", because this is the idea of the English word "woman", which word can be observed (though, I'm afraid, the English men will not confess this) as a combination of womb + man (and you know that the "b" isn't read), so that all is clear.      Then there comes her unmatched egoism. Well, it is clear that the life is fight for prevalence, so that if one does not mind his interests then there is nobody who will mind them for him, but with the woman this is raised to obsession and against the others. As a result of this always her own "chickens" are the best ones and she has no desire to look unprejudiced to the things, so that she is also maximally prejudiced and unfair to the others. Having in mind this very strong (even twisted over) egoism she almost always reacts based on the jealously (very often also on the hate) to the others, and not so much on her own interests (let us remind in parentheses that the main cause for the human disasters is not that they don't mind their interests, but that they don't know well their interests, don't establish them correctly). Well, this has its explanation, because she is that, who carries the children in her womb, and they are not thousands (like, say, by the bees), but are counted on fingers, so that she could have been objective, either if it goes not about something of her own, or if the extrauterine conception enters firmly in our life. But the egoism is in her blood, because the women are not between those who use to group in bands (be it in order to play football, or to go to wars, or to the stadiums, etc.).      Another very important feminine characteristic, which we mentioned implicitly, but have not yet emphasized on it till now, is her maximal nearness to the source of life, or to the ... animal, i.e. her animal nature! Well, the man also, as thinking animal as you say (though the Slavs don't like to be called animals), has his animal nature, but in him, still, exists also something intellectual, something from God, what isn't present by the animals, where the woman is the most animal-like human variety, and this isn't a wordplay, but long ago noticed (and fixed in all religions) characteristic of her. This says that she is more brutal, more ruthless, more lustful, more wild and primitive part of the humanity, though this is neither bad nor good, but just a necessity of life! If the women (I beg to be excused this time by the men) does not devour the man after the act, as the praying mantis does, for example, or does not put him in the pot (in order, say, to provide good supply of milk for the baby), after she has conceived by him, then this does not mean that she can not throw him away when he becomes old, or poor, or falls in disgrace, or after she has ceased to love him, i.e. after he has fulfilled his purpose (and let us remind you that the majority of divorces and alimony suits nowadays are initiated by the part of woman, not the man, and this in the era of emancipation, when women earn not less money then men, and often more). In the majority of cases this is a normal reaction because of concern for the posterity, but sometimes is reached to the so called "brood-hen instinct", who, in her efforts to worm the chickens under her, smashes from time to time a chick. It is true that the man also may react in some cases like woman, but by him this, not only happens rarely, but the very reaction has more civilized character and from love it changes, usually, to some degree or indifference, where for the woman the rule is: from love — to hatred, what is the most primitive animal reaction to an increasing emotional factor.      The next, but also very important, characteristic of the feminine principle is the inherent to woman mediocrity and imperfection! And as far as this also does not sound very good for the women, then let me again remind you that the intent of the author is not to spit at them, but to reveal the truth, so that this also is neither bad nor good, but elementary necessity, or consequence of the existence of two principles in life, because God (or the nature) can't afford himself to leave such important task like the prolongation and preservation of gender (i.e. the most important life goal) in the hands (or, rather, in the ... legs, but such is the usual expression) of some exceptional or extreme individual (because even a God can't predict to what could lead one exceptionality until some time passes, but then it would be too late to make things right)! The mediocrity is indispensible requirement for the "birth device" and this is inevitable consequence of one good organized reproductive system. By the humans this trait, at least in the appearance, is a bit masked (due to the intellect of men, presumably, who prefer to spread some pleasant for the women fabrications, tales, or compliments), but by the animals is obvious that the masculine exemplar is that who must be (and he is) more beautiful and attractive with something, for example: by the deers — with the horns, by the canaries — with the song, by the peacocks — with the tail, by the bulls — with the strength, and so on. (A propos, about the bulls — and he is "bik" in Bulgarian — and the ... love, but in Bulgarian variant as "obich": here surely exists some connecting association, because the Spaniards say "besa me mucho", what means "kiss me hard", the English say "best", but also "beast", what is French and Latin, and have also the adjective "big" what is nearly the same as Bulgarian bik-bull, and our obich-love is not Slavonic but there is something ... Tartaric in it, because in Mongolian the phrase "obicham te", what is "I love you", has sounded as 'bich-ham-te'!) So, let us return to the nice appearance, compare the woman for one wider period of time — say, from 15 to 75 years — with the masculine exemplar for each age and it is easy to observe that only somewhere between 15 and 25 years could be said that the woman looks better, but this is mainly for erotic reasons, and it can be argued about this, where the man looks nice on 20, and on 40, and on 50, and on 70 years, just as a perfect natural creation!      So that the woman (as a rule) is more faceless and mediocre by appearance as also by intellect, as by strength, and by whatever you want, but this mediocrity, on the other hand, because this means "in the middle", is exactly what she needs for to withstand easily normal living conditions, and some extreme ones too, in order to be able to fix (conserve) in the posterity the substantial characteristics of those males, who were succeeded to survive, because, as by the animals, so also by the humans, the females are more endurable exemplars. These are experimentally and statistically confirmed facts. If some of you prefer to remain in error about the question then this is their right, but this phenomenon has its easy explanation based on the fact that the female is this who chooses, i.e. who plays the active role in the prolongation of the gender, where the male does that, what the female wants him to do! Cynically or not, but the man is the obedient (and silly, if you want) figure in relation to the prolongation of the gender, and the woman is the mediocre exemplar who chooses the exceptional individual (in the same way how she chooses a nice flower to decorate herself), and this is an entirely justified requirement.      The mediocrity of the woman is expressed mainly in this, that she is one imperfect or uncompleted individual (what linguistically is of the same root — think about the perfect and imperfect times —, though people don't give a thought to this point), in a sense of her physical, psychical, and intellectual qualities. We can even not mention man's intellect in order not to restrict the validity of the observation for animals, but also because the men (as a rule) are not such persons who like much to use their intellect (if they can do without it). Even the very woman obviously feels her imperfection, when for millenniums resorts to all sorts of ways to beautify herself, or to "make up" (according to your word, which is the French maquillage), to amend, and when some men also do this — well, it is explainable with their feminine qualities (especially in adolescent age, when the individual is not yet finally formed). In other words, if we express ourselves a bit aphoristic: the woman is perfect in her imperfection as independent individual! She is perfect regarding the effectiveness of the unit (weighs less, eats less, lives more economically and longer, spends her more moderate, etc.), but her main goal is the prolongation of the gender, and for this she needs a man (where for him this isn't his primary goal in life, as we shell clarify it after a while). She even — and with the appropriate apology to the ladies —, well, as some men say: what do you want from a woman, when she can't even ... pee like a human!      But, for not to get women angry at us, let us finish with them with one poetical metaphor, which says, that "the woman is the postbox of the man to the posterity" — if the man has the necessary "pencil" (or, rather, "fountain pen"), then he can begin to write his "letters". This sentence underlines the intermediate place, which the woman occupies between the man and the offsprings — intermediate in sense of intellect, and of other qualities. Exactly this intermediate position of the woman is important for bringing up of the young children, at least until they are small, and, besides, genetically viewed the man is that who determines the most important attribute of the descendant — his gender — and who, most often, has dominant genes (though here also exist exceptions). So that the role of a go-between is very important and necessary (when we do not multiply by budding or cloning) and certain dose of specialization is also necessary, because if each human individual was bisexual then the most often intercourses would have had auto-reflexive character, and this would have strongly diminished the so needed in life variety.      And now let us move to      2.2. The man's principle, but it has to be clear that it is as much as possible opposite to the woman's (the author is sexist, however much this may disagree with the wishes of some women). So, contrary to the conservatism of the woman, the man is born innovator, or searching personality, who with many risky moments has the goal to ensure, not the prolongation, but the development of the gender, i.e. its modification in accordance with the changes of external conditions. Taking into account the fact that the productivity of the man is such that even by the "conventional" way of multiplication one masculine exemplar can make hundreds and thousands of children, and with artificial insemination we go even to millions, it turns that the necessity of men is at least hundred times less. By the animals this is entirely valid and there one male serves ten females, where the hunters and ecologists find that it is justified for the males to decrease even more. In the ancient periods of human history the situation must have been the same also by many savage tribes, due to the hard living conditions and numerous fights between them, but nowadays in the civilized countries the polygamy is forbidden (probably by the initiative of men, for to justify the necessity of equal number of men and women), but this isn't entirely appropriate for the posterity.      As most characteristic expression of the searching male principle the author finds his ... passion for games, where are risks, experimentation, not conservation, and this is, in fact, his major living goal, which can give something for the development of the gender, not for its trivial continuation! For the man everything is game, including the life itself. And by our already developed habit we will again give linguistic confirmation of this beginning with the English word game, which is hunting as well as playing, because that is the preferred play for the men, or it was so during many centuries, before the playing machines, and now the computer games, ware invented; a similar idea is hidden in Russian word "ohota", what is hunting, but also strong wish. Then in Czech they have the curious word "herna", what isn't, hmm, toilet for men (as some of you might have thought, as related with German Herr-master), but playroom, yet this is exactly a hall for man! And what is the war for the man, if not one dangerous game (or at least it was a game, somewhere up to 19-th century, when there has begun to disappear the difference between front and rear)? And what is the career for the man, if not one social game? And the share market? And how many are the women (in productive age, not then, when nobody counts them for women), whom you will see to play card games, or chess — well, as many as to stress on the exceptionality of these activities for them! And isn't the science also a game with the secrets of nature?      Next, to the woman's egoism and prejudice is opposed the apparent collectivism of the male, especially by the humans, where men are those who like to gather in big groups, were it in war bands, were it at sporting events, or in clubs and cafes. As also the man is that who, most often, is capable to selfless and gentlemanlike acts, to justness or fair play (as it is known in Bulgaria, too). Even during wars he kills because of necessity, not out of anger and hatred (or so it is in the majority of cases). This isn't hard to be explained with the motivation for man's actions, which is to be able to express himself with something before the others, with something that is valued from the others, or, at least, what is interesting for him, regardless the interest for continuation of the gender (or the personal benefits). Even when the man shows himself as egoist he does this for collectivistic purposes, in the name of family or group to which he belongs, while the woman, even when she shows collectivism, she does this out of egoistic motives, to preserve her offspring (who she feels as part of herself). This isn't an apotheosis of the man, of course, but realism. It may be formulated even a stronger sentence, namely: the woman creates love using hatred, while the man — hatred using love! But what is to be done — inscrutable are the way of the Lord, or the way to hell is strewn with good intentions, or one wants one thing, does another, and a third results, because he has neither known himself, as this was required by the ancient Greek philosophers, nor can change something in the genetic tendencies put into him, except to obey to the behest of gender, which requires that the woman must preserve the gender, and the man must supplement and enhance it (if he succeeds to stay alive).      The next thing is that, contrary to the nearness to the animal, the man is nearer to God or to the reason (if we do not use the hypothesis of God). This follows from the other qualities of the man, but chiefly from his intellect, this underdeveloped human instinct that stays very near to the game, where by one average woman it is hardly to expect some intellect (at least higher than the average one), because she does not need intellect for continuation of the gender (the sex can be whatever else, but not intellectual business). The act of intellect itself is, in fact, something exceptional and perfect (to what we shall come after a while), and it is normal for it to be owned mainly by men; the fact that there are also many clever women does not mean that this is an often met occurrence, on the contrary, and in most of the cases it is explained with some other drawbacks of the woman in question (most often physical), which force her to search compensation in the intellectual sphere, because a bright and beautiful woman is one, hmm, blatant contradiction (at least while she is still woman in the sexual aspect of the word), and this is the reason why such women are highly honored, because the demand is determined by the supply! In the same time the intelligent men have never been highly demanded, where the strong one, or the wealthy, or the nice (at least till they remain such) are in big demand (though the situation for the bright men is not entirely hopeless if they are, in addition, also wealthy, for example, i.e. the intellect is not such substantial hindrance). This state of the things, however, is wholly normal from the point of view of dividing of the activities between the man and the woman, where the woman remains nearer to the animal, where from we all have come, and the man strives to be nearer to the divine reason, where to we all, little by little, are moving.      So, and on the place of woman's mediocrity comes man's exceptionality and perfection. This is, maybe, the main consideration, because of which in Christian religion (as also in others) the image of God (or the supreme God) is always that of a man, though there is much more natural this to be a woman, because she creates and engenders (like Gea, in Greek mythology). It is true that each one is convinced that the woman creates the life but no religion could have acquired more followers, if its main God were not with the image of the perfect, exceptional, and omnipotent masculine individual. This, obviously, is related with the, excuse me for the reminder, cult to the phallus, which dates millenniums back, but could you imagine if instead of this cult there was such to the corresponding (it is to be called homological) woman's organ? Well, the author has not so vivid imagination for to imagine such cult. So that, as strange as it seems, but people have, after all, feeling for beauty and harmony! But this, that the man is the perfect individual, does not mean that the men are perfect in every respect, nor that this perfection is always something good (for there are also perfect drunkards, for example). Still, the rule is, that the man reaches perfection in some area (in order to try, though unconsciously, to pass it to the offsprings), while the single perfection of the woman is her mediocrity, as we have already stated.      But this perfection carries also its consequences, because the men, being more diverse in the complex of their qualities, are also more susceptible to external factors like: unfavourable weather conditions, greater vulnerability to various diseases, including mental, more intensive metabolism, aggravated by their larger dimensions, more risky nature of their work, in comparison with the women and so on. In two words, this means that exactly the men are the weaker gender, contrary to the widely spread delusions (again initiated by men, for to make yet another compliment to the women, that they value them as painted Easter eggs), where "weak" must be understood in sense of averaged characteristic of the men. But at the same time the record, or extreme achievements, were it in the sports, or in sciences, arts, or elsewhere, belong to the men, i.e. to some men, where for nonextreme activities the women are, definitely, more appropriate, and that is why they are those who are engaged with a number of monotonous, or not requiring special artfulness, activities. Put it otherwise, the men are the more specialized individuals, who could bring something new in the genetic code of the gender and that is why there are sufficient few men (but many "postboxes").      But there is one more important element for the man, which, definitely, is absent by the women (and that is why we have not mentioned it there) and this is the sense of proportion! It is closely relayed with the reason, even with the wisdom, because in our contradictory world the most important thing is to find the appropriate point of balance, something that was known in Ancient Greece (and even earlier) — the slogan "Nothing in excess!". This is an art or wisdom, because this measure is based on incalculable things, it can't be measured quantitative (because it comprises different qualities), and for this reason even the Eastern philosophers have claimed that the wisdom (in contrast to the sciences) can't be learned, and one either can come to it (based on his experience in life, on the karma, i.e. on his genetic makings) or he can't. This is a kind of instinct, that has some analogue by the women — the so called "woman's intuition", which is again on instinctive base —, but it is very important for reaching of right, i.e. well balanced, actions (because to extremities even an imbecile can come). And have you ever asked yourself why the man (as a rule) has sense of proportion, while the woman hasn't (and for that reason she is the most lustful, most violent, and other "most" things)? Well, in order to answer this question we have to look directly to the sex, where it is known that the woman ... always can (say, about 15 to 20 coitions daily, I beg your pardon, wouldn't have been very difficult for her, how it has happened sometimes with some prostitutes in very busy days), while the man sometimes can, but sometimes can't! This, that the man may also not can, forces him (from an young age), willy-nilly, to become used to search the measure also in other things; this does not occur thoughtfully, but it becomes habit, instinct, where there is no such inner impulse for the woman and that is why she knows only to want (were it more men, or more clothes, or else to be dissatisfied by everything).      At this place some more careful reader might become aware, that this oscillation between "can" and "can not" is not exactly moderation, but working in the so called impulse mode. Well, this is so, but, regretfully, the impulse mode is the only mass available substitute for moderation, for example: one eats meat at full in the morning, for lunch, and at dinner, and the next thing is that he does not eat at all meat for some weeks; or one does not drink alcohol, does not drink, and then at once begins drinking blast which lasts days in succession; or in the political life — we either turn to the left, or then to the right (and in Ancient Greece there were changes of periods of democracy directly with such of tyranny); or take the wakefulness, when one usually thinks logically, and the dormant state, when he thinks associatively, but the logic is the last thing about which he cares; and many other examples. It is especially difficult to discern this imitation of moderation when the period of oscillation is of order of years or decades, but there is nothing to be done, because one (even if he is a man) can only strive for wisdom, but to reach it he has not the luck. On the other hand, people speak about moderation for many centuries, all have heard that this is a good thing, and why then they do not behave moderate? Well, because this is both, not easy for them, and also not always is very good, inasmuch as on this world with moderation nothing great has been reached — neither in the science, nor in the sports, nor in the arts, nor in conquering of a country or in state of war in general. Id est then, when it goes about great (extreme) achievements, they can't be reached with moderate actions, but in everyday life there is nothing better than moderation! This is seen dividing people not only by gender, but also by age, where the younger ones are less moderate, in the middle of life people learn, more or less, to live moderately, and in their old years — and this is one of the main signs of aging — they begin gradually to loose their sense of proportion.      Well, we clarified basically both principles but let us conclude this chapter with one thought experiment designed to reverse somehow the things, to make the feminine sex the hard and active one, and the masculine — the weak and passive. This can be done easily enough if we subject the sexual organs to one ... homomorphic, as it's said, transformation, i.e. to one elastic change, which, retaining the "hole" and the "rod", has to swap their places! This is possible because by elastic change — like something painted on a balloon — it may be changed, for example, the cube to a ball, right? So that we may take the "hole" and draw and elongate it in a proboscis, and the "rod" shrink to something like small button and conceal it in the lap (what isn't something impossible, because both genders are somehow represented in each individual, due to what it is possible to perform operations for changing of gender, and you also surely know that the clitoris by the women is underdeveloped penis). In this case the feminine organ will inflate and search to shove itself in the hole of the masculine and suck there something, and this will lead to various connected with this changes, to reversing of the things.      But this reversing is not only imaginary, it is, up to a certain extent, done by the plants, where, as you know, the pistils are hard and sticking out, and the stamens are very tiny and clumsy, so that, for to come to both genders by the animals the dear God or the nature, willingly or not, have gone through some similar variant. Yeah, but they have rejected it, as impossible or at least unsuitable! Now, do you feel it, these kind of reasonings are highly similar to the well known proving by supposing the contrary, which leads to logical absurd, only that here logically all seems entirely feasible, but turns out to be practically absurd. Well, this is not quite rigorous mathematical proof, because if something has not happened this does not mean that it can't happen sometime, but ... it is almost so, because the evolution (or God) has tried a lot of variants for awfully long time, so that there are every grounds to believe that, if something is absent from the nature, it is in some aspect not appropriate, what, in essence, is an old Eastern assertion, i.e. that our world is the best of all possible. So that the conservative individual must be weaker, susceptible to pressure, more mediocre, more partial, and so on, and the creative gender must be more impertinent, hard, risky, and so on, and we can't avoid this.      So, and now it remains only to cast a look at the near future, when this big experiment named emancipation settles down a little.           3. Where to after the emancipation?      Because the men, even if they want, can't revert back the history — well, the history, really, leads to frequent repetitions, but with some new element, on a new turn of the spiral of evolution, and here is clear that the women will not give up not one of their obtained liberties, if they have been given once to them. Though they have been given to them (or they have won them, if the women insist so much on this difference), because this has become possible, with the relieving of life on the whole (and of the housework in particular). (A propos, for such cases, when some thing that has to happen, really happens, our so called "shop", from the area around Sofia, has the nice saying, that: "This, what is needed, it wants itself alone!") So that, after we already have the emancipation, let us see what will happen in the near future.      But let us first make the important difference between the family, as an unit for bringing up of the children, and the society, as a place for labour and social activity, because these things have to be distinguished. In the society is clear that the woman can, and even must, take ever increasing part. And do you know why, most of all? Well, ha, ha, because she is mediocre, and if so then she is the ideal individual for monotonous or routine activities, but nowadays (in the era of technologies) almost each kinds of labour is routine, and even the science and art have become industries (or "productive forces", according to the old communist terminology)! Here and there is, still, necessity (as it will ever be) of strokes of genius, but we don't speak about geniuses but about common people. The elitist positions, anyway, are only few percents (and even in those cases it goes, generally, again about routine). Besides, there have not left typical masculine professions, needing physical strength (the armies, still, are masculine, but in the polices for a long time work not only men). So that, however we look at it, if the women want to work, they can perform practically every work, and in many cases even better than the men, because there are activities where one average man would have felt bored, and in the majority of cases in working with customers the women are preferable. The same applies also in the politics, where the woman, again, is the ideal candidate, by the same reason of mediocrity, because the elected officials are, more or less, people from the masses, and have to think like average citizens, not like an elite (for otherwise they could not have been understood by the masses).      And when we mentioned the sphere of services (dealing with clients) then in the contemporary economies it occupies more than a half of the working force. This, by the way, was the major error of Marx, because the typical working force, as people from the factories, becomes less and less. Roughly speaking, in agriculture work only 5 to 10% of the people, in factories maybe about 15-20% (but with tendency for their number to decrease), in army and police about 5%, and all left (education, healthcare, banking, trade, tourism, services, and others) is some kind of services, where remain about 2/3 of the total number. But this can be taken for an error of Marx only by persons who think dogmatically, because the idea of the man was about hired workers, i.e. such who don't work with their own means of production, and such are more than 90% of the working people. However it is, the woman, definitely, will become the dominating gender in the society and business, so that not only it is normal to expect that in the families (as far as such units remain, what we will discuss shortly) the women will be those who will win the bread (and the man will do the housework, look after the children, and so on), but it is not at all excluded, supposing that the gender of the children can be established earlier, or to be ordered (by artificial birth), that the part of men will become two, three, or even ten times less than that of women — after, say, a pair of centuries. The only obstacle in this respect can be ... the brains of women (well, as long as they have them), i.e. that they at last will understand that they only lose (meaning that cut the brench on which they sit), because from the emancipation till the moment they must do many things like: go to work, and there have left no gentlemen more (when all are equal, and more so when the men are the weaker gender, then about what gentlemanliness we can speak?), and they will begin to retire on the same age with the men, and there will be no more families, so that they will have not even by one guarantied "sexual worker" for each of them, and so on. And there, where men will exist, they should be taken under protection of the state (or, eventually, of some women), because the slogan: "Women, keep your men!" has been raised somewhere about the middle of the 20-th century and has all causes for its existence.      And before we have come to the disappearance of the families (because this already become clear) let us squeeze here some thoughts about the kinds of governing, because this emancipation have come out of women's wish to rule. Well, from ancient times it is known that the governing has two sides, joined in one dialectical link, and these are: the strategy and the tactics! The strategist says "I want, this and this", and the tactic says "so and so must be acted", but both are important, so that when we speak about governing we must have in mind which kind exactly. It is clear that there always remains the question with the dispatching of these activities, which stands above everything, but there are different ways for doing this (say, vertical dividing of spheres of activity), and it is natural to accept that this is the man (at least where the sex interferes, but in the business this isn't obligatory). From both sexes — after all said till now this has to be completely clear — the strategist is the woman, and the tactic is the man, and it was so millenniums of human history, in relation to what in Bulgaria we have the saying that the man is the head, but the woman is the neck. It is good if this mutual relation can be preserved in the future, but if the women so much long to be both the head and the neck, then let them support themselves alone; still, the role of man as neck just isn't typical for him (he wants only to play, the man, and what goal in life this can be?).      So, and now about the families. Historically looked they are created as minimal social units needed for creating and bringing up of the offsprings and come on the place of former primitive communities. When life becomes a bit easier, then the genera remain only as background of the families, but even before a century there were big families where the oldest was the head, and remained as such while living. In the present day the bringing up of the children (we must not bother about the creating because it is done easily and pleasantly) is not a special problem (well, in Bulgaria at the moment this isn't so, but we are speaking about somewhere after half a century), and in the future it will be even more taken by the state. This is so even nowadays in many Western countries, where the principle is (or will become) that the child allowances are paid uniformly according estimations for average needs, and the money for them are taken from the parents or other grown people according to their incomes. If one is so much engaged that he /she can't care for his /her children then there is solution also for such cases, there exist various institutions (kindergartens, boarding schools, colleges, etc.). If we assume that life will become ever easier then there is normal to suppose that the minimal unit will be reduced to the number one, and this will be the single parent, no matter whether the people live together or are divorced, or even are not so but everyone takes care for certain child.      Let us clear this better. You see, after the families fall apart (and it is clear that they fall apart because of incessantly growing number of divorces) it is high time to come to some decision (what will happen sometime), where the most natural is even before impregnation (accompanied or not with marriage) to be clear which child to whom of the parents will belong, and he or she will mainly care for him (or her) and bring him up. This estimation can be done with some (marriage or pseudo-marriage, because it could be about homo-families) treaty, but there has to be some preset default if there is no treaty, and the most logical thing is: if the child is a boy to be given to the father, and if she is a girl — to the mother. If the women want to be equal with the men, or at least to try this, then there is no reason to accept that the mother as a rule will look after the children; it is true that the men have not yet come to the idea that they are the main injured party by the divorce, but this "gentlemanly" inertia will cease soon. Such fixing of the children to one of the parents has also this advantage that in this way each will know whether he /she has fulfilled his /her obligation to the posterity or not, and this obligation will consist in bringing up of one child, because only in this way can be stopped the galloping or exploding birthrate (according to calculations of the author the world population is "only" 200 times greater than the needed, but this topic is discussed somewhere else). If the author is right thinking that the higher living standard leads to the capability for the woman to take ever increasing (and prevailing) part in the society and production, as also to the falling apart of the families, i.e. if we take these things as "unavoidable evil", than the above-explained decision will be quite reasonable way for going out of the current mess. When even today the extrauterine conception costs two-three average monthly salaries (for the West), then there are no problems to expect that after half to one century one artificial mother (incubator for children) will cost as much as, say, a pair of dishwashers (or a second-hand car), so that each one will be in position to afford it, and we will go also without families. It is true that a man may populate a whole planet with his genetic material, but the woman also is not so limited, because for her life she produces more than 500 ova, so that she can give 4-5 (or more, if somebody wants them from her) for the corresponding gene banks. This may be a fantasy, but the future, looked at through the eyes of the present, is a fantasy.      But this was about the question of multiplication, and the sex is something else, right? In the sense that when for a long time is made difference between love and sex then why not to make difference between sex and children? And on this place we must add that the emancipation has one more effect related exactly with the sex (but is it nice or not is a matter of viewpoint) and this is the growth of homosexuality! Because homosexuals have ever existed (and they must exist also between animals), though now they not only become legal (at the end, why not?), but also their number begin to grow; while before this was only temporary substitute then now this becomes official characteristic of the person — something like, say, the colour of eyes. And that this is consequence of emancipation must be obvious, because if one is a man and, as they say, the hormones force him to act, and one can never rely on one woman, because just when he become used to her and she throws him out, and he, anyway, is the weaker sex, easily vulnerable (the woman weeps and sobs a little and comes over the problem, but the man can not weep and there are not ... courses in weeping for men), and so on, but one can not rely also on many women, because he prefers to have somebody close to him, not to spend each time his physical etc. energy to take the stars from the sky and throw them down at her feet, so that what else remains at his disposition if not somebody alike with him?      And this about the habituation is very true because also other men before the author have remarked that the man begins with sex and comes to love, while the women — and surely here all must be on the contrary — begins with love and finishes with sex. The man begins with sex because, well, because "the rod itches", but comes to love (usually), maybe by habit, out of sense of responsibility or gentlemanliness, or because of ... pure laziness, to search each time new subject for one (mean, right?) physiological need. While the woman begins with love because ... By the way, have you ever asked yourself why for so many centuries it was thought right that the woman must enter the marriage as virgin? The question is important because this is knowledge (even from biblical times the copulation was equated with the abstract scientific knowledge), so that the woman, it turns, must be restrained from the knowledge, and this seems curious, because the man always prefers to know something than not to. Yeah, but for the woman the knowledge does not bring happiness and this surely have been remarked by some man in ancient times and later the others have also agreed with him. After so much words it has to be already clear that the "birth box", for which the game element is foreign, has no need of knowledge, it does not help her in the life. That is why she (even if is not virgin) must be deceived with something, for example, that her partner (it may not necessary be her husband) is nice, or wealthy, or has good chances for career, or whatever, and you see where from comes the love (because it is a delusion, but we shall return to this later), and when some time flows instead of this love comes the sex, because the woman tries to find the game element in the sex, she has no other possibility.      So, but when the man begins now more often to search his sexual likeness then this applies in full also to the woman, because, when she can very well live alone, can earn more money than the man, does not want to listen to anybody (and here it doesn't matter whether the man is more intelligent, for the woman the logic is of no importance), then why on earth (or the hell — as most like to say) she must have a husband — as some women say: only (I beg your pardon) to piss on the toilet ring! And the woman, if we are frank, is something finer, frailer, more sensual, so that if one man may love another man, then one woman can even more love another woman; while by the masculine homosex there are some unaesthetic moments, then by the feminine one there are no such things. And exactly the emancipatesses are between the first lesbians, i.e. it is not necessary for one Emanze (as the Germans call them) to be lesbian, but the reverse is necessary. Well, if the women like this situation, if they don't value the "small difference", then, as it's said, let them continue so, but the point is that the author thinks that they don't give themselves account on the matter; the women know to want, and is it possible and at what price, this does not interest them, or they can't grasp it.      This, of course, as we have already mentioned, does not mean that the homosex is necessarily something bad; it is something unnatural, something sickly, but it isn't socially dangerous, so that let it exist, if this is necessary, but not to force it deliberately on the stage of life. And it has also some advantages, in sense of stronger feelings, because by it the sex is ideal, separated from the continuation of the family, i.e. it remains, really, only as some unavoidable physical necessity, but without the least illusion for conception. So that, in two words, if you are looking somewhere for love search it between the homosexuals! And at last we have come to the question of love, though not as sex but as strong feeling of affection and need, as profoundly expressed liking, which can be applied also to animals or inanimate things. On this subject are written volumes of literature, but only once the author has met a reasonable definition, which is the following: love is assessment of the perfection of an object, what means that if you love something you don't want to change it, you want neither to add something to it, nor to take anything away! Well, this assessments usually is a delusion, but in this situation you see that in at least 90% of the cases, when people speak about love, they have in mind something different (sex, habituation, physiological necessity, but not love), because the first thing, that two lovers do is to model the other, in accordance with his (or her) own views, ostensibly to make her (or him) better, to care for the partner, and so on, though this, what they should have been doing, is just to stay there and admire the other, and if they do something for him /her this may be only some such thing that helps him to be what he is.      Well, maybe it is high time to finish, so that only one small prognosis for the middle and end of the 21-th century. The men, regardless of in- or extra- -uterine birth, of presence or absence of families, of homo- or hetero- pairs, or poly- -gamy or -andry, will remain in number as many as the women (it is hardly to imagine that the women will sacrifice their fun, and this in interest of the nature; in the human society, somehow, is preferable to be in equal number). To work will go about twice as many women than men. Marriages as a rule will not be concluded, but about 1/3 of the children will be brought up by two parents, where 1/3 of this number (or about 10% from the total) will me homo pairs, and the left 2/3 of the children will have in the moment only one parent (i.e. he may be at all only one, or they have divorced); there might have exist also some communes, for easier bringing up of the children, but because the latter are the greater ... egoists they will not like it there and such children will be not more than 5%. There will not be public incubators, unless one orders there a child (i.e. when is known to whom he /she is). Each citizen (man or woman) will be allowed to have one child, for whom the state will help, and if somebody so much wants to have more than this, then not only he will be forced to pay for everything, but will pay also some additional tax for him. Together with woman's protection from conception there will be used also some way for prolonged male sterility (but not irrecoverable). People will not speak more about emancipation and will become clear that the man is the weaker sex, regardless of his abilities for stronger momentary strains, or exactly because of this. And the children will be baptized with three names, where the family (as the most logical expectation) will be of the man if the child is a boy, and of the woman if she is a girl; the second name will be that of the other parent; and the personal name will be temporary and each child will have to approve or amend it after, say, the age of 12 years. And with this we put the last dot.      April 2004       — — —           Appendix           Sure Test   Listen guys, I'll tell you now Test worth more than golden ounce: Whether your girl's nice and you are blessed, Or is she then ... emancipatess. This is simple, even banal, Yet a bit, I would say, ... anal: You just slap her gentle, kind. Where? — Well, on the behind! If she's girl in th' proper sense, She will smile and maybe mutter Something nice, not take offense, Soft to you remain like butter, Otherwise with wrath immense Turn to you will sharp as cutter. July 2002, translation July 2013              — — — — —