This is Chapter 2 of my soon to be published book entitled, The Brain Virus—What Our Brains don’t want Us to Know.
Only Women Possess the Spiritual Authority to Show Us the Way
What is a home? We think of home as family—father, mother, children. But we forget that marriage is an institution, a contractual arrangement set up and enforced, by government, to define the obligations of a man and a woman to each other, and to their offspring. This institution, the nuclear family, made up of pair-bonded parents and their children living separately from others, has existed for thousands of years, as virtually the only concept of home, among humans. Yet, for many more thousands of years previous to that, humans lived in organic families—small groups with multiple men, women, and children who depended on each other to survive. Which kind of family best serves our emotional needs as humans? Is it the kind we lived in while our emotions were evolving, or a family based on institutionally-prescribed obligations.
Emotions Evolve to Fit Sociological Circumstances
To address this question we might ask: What determines our emotional needs? Are they culturally imposed, or are they based on instinct? In some cultures, people feel families should be polygamous, while, in most, only pair bonding is acceptable. Cultural influences clearly affect our feelings about what constitutes an appropriate family. But, all cultures recognize the need for family. Apparently, our need for family is not culturally imposed, but innate. This makes sense. As a social species, humans cannot survive the natural world alone. In the natural world, where humans lived while our emotional features were evolving, any individual who lacked the desire to seek and treasure family relationships would have perished. For any human living at that time, such lack of desire would have constituted a genetic defect—a defect that would be eliminated from our species’ gene pool by that individual’s demise.
This illustrates how emotional features evolve to fit sociological environments, just as physical features evolve to comply with physical environments. Think of what it would be like for us to live on a planet where gravity is ten times greater than it is on Earth. Having evolved on Earth, we are not physically fit for such an environment. Likewise, as a social species, humans cannot survive the natural world, either alone or in pairs. Given our physical limitations, our survival requires tightly-knit social groups. This is how we survived for eons, while our emotions were evolving, and for most of the 200,000 years we have existed as a distinct species.
But, at some point, humans began functioning in pairs, instead of social groups. Family relationships no longer involved emotional intimacy with 20 to 30 people of both sexes and of all ages (emotional intimacy does not imply sexual intimacy). Suddenly, family was limited to one other individual, of the opposite sex, and the resulting children. Having evolved as a social species, were humans emotionally fit for such a dramatic change in family life? Are we, even now? I don’t think so. The ongoing failure of the nuclear family implies that pair bonding is as difficult for us to manage, emotionally, as a tenfold increase in gravity would be for us to manage, physically.
People continue to idealize marriage, which given our cultural circumstances, makes sense. After all, how can we be at peace with life, unless we devote ourselves to whatever practices the culture imposes, as prerequisites for respectability and survival? This explains, for instance, why many Middle-Eastern women are devoted to, and devoutly defend, the practice of wearing burkas. They are surrendering their spiritual authority to the arbitrary requirements of their institutions. This is not by free will, but simply for the sake of being at peace with their circumstances. Likewise, one of the myriad ways that our minds surrender and make peace with our cultural imperatives, is to place the institution of marriage on a pedestal.
The Rise of Women’s Rights Exposes the Inadequacy of the Nuclear Family
Despite our devotion, however, something deep within us—our souls, perhaps—seems to be rebuffing the arrangement, a state of contradiction made evident by the ubiquity of unhappy couples, high divorce rates, overcrowded abuse shelters, evermore children in need of foster care—and, last but not least, by the remarkable fact that over half of American adults now live alone. While our heads are saying one thing, our souls are voting with our feet. Though some couples are clearly happy—which we all celebrate—still, all of the “should-bes” that traditionally justify the institution of marriage—happiness ever after, security for women, stability, a viable foundation for raising children—in large part, they’re just not happening.
There was a time, not long ago, when women did not have the right to own property, or even to bear children outside of marriage. The nuclear family was remarkably stable back then. But, since women began gaining civil rights—and the freedom to function independently of men—the ongoing multidimensional failure of the nuclear family has given us ever more reason to question its viability. Is there a connection between female freedom and the breakdown of marriage? I believe there is.
By equating the wife’s legal status with that of the husband’s servants, property, and oxen, the Tenth Commandment of the Bible implies that the institution of marriage, as traditionally practiced, is based on men owning women—in effect, on the legal enslavement of women. How could the gaining of freedom by women not bring into question the institution through which they were enslaved, in the first place?
The significance of men enslaving women by institutionalizing family relationships, cannot be overstated. Evolution imprinted females with the major role in family life, a role so powerful that it endures, undiminished, even to this day, despite their multi-millennial legal enslavement. Before institutions existed, human families likely took their form to satisfy the most salient of human social needs—the needs of women for a secure and stable place to bear and raise their children. To establish a home, women would have had to bond, as a social group, with other women, instead of pair-bonding with men. The practical reason for this was that natural men, having not yet developed institutions to bolster themselves by authorizing legal claims, could not provide a woman with her most basic need—a secure place for raising her children. Because only women shared this need (paternity is not known when women are spiritually/sexually free), female social bonds would have surely formed the nucleus of natural human families. By the grace of the women, men served their sisterhood by collaborating to protect, and help provide for the women and the children.
With things going so smoothly, and with human life flourishing, why did prehistoric men begin forming the coalitions that would surely have been required, in order to make lifetime personal claims on women? The most likely reason is that men wanted to own the children they sired, once humans had recognized the connection between sex and childbirth. This required social mores that restricted each woman to having sex with only one man, and made female sexual availability to that man a cultural/legal imperative—resulting in subsequent population explosions. Another reason might have been the social status that men gained, by owning women. Or, it could be that, when in the spell of romance, men wanted to claim that relationship—that feeling—for life.
Men Owning Women Destroyed Natural Order
But why men denied women their freedom and natural dignity, through cultural compulsion, doesn’t really matter. What matters is that, by institutionalizing family relationships, men destroyed the female social bonds that had always formed the nucleus of natural human families—which, in my view, is the only viable basis for social order, among humans.
Species survival is an amazingly complex process. While evolving in the natural world, both genders developed their own unique set of sensibilities that reflected their different roles in contributing to the species’ success. This is why the sensibilities of females are so different from those of males, today. For example, men regularly complain about women talking all the time, which is often a significant burden for the men who live with them. What we don’t realize is that the propensity of women to talk so much probably exists because it is essential to human survival. You see, given the immense complexity of surviving the natural world, one brain, alone—even a huge one—cannot assure our species’ success. For our species to prevail, brains must be networked. By “thinking out loud”—something most men don’t do—socially-bonded females become of one mind. This combined intelligence forms a “super-mind,” if you will—one that is essential to making the decisions and maintaining the order required for our species to flourish.
In the natural world, a significant aspect of order results from territorial sensibilities—that is, the felt-need to defend one’s own territory, and to respect the territory of others. Though it may seem counterintuitive at first, women are territorial, while the issue for men is largely one of identity—that is, “How important am I?” Women will fight fiercely to defend their territory. That results in order! Of equal significance, because of their territorial sensibilities, is the respect women show for the territory of others. That, too, is order. In the natural world, men would normally establish their importance by the quality of their service to the sisterhood. But we modern men, whose ancestors destroyed female social bonds—by owning women as we still do—are left with only the self-aggrandizement of wealth, privilege, and conquest through which to establish our significance. The result of men grasping for all the self-importance they can, by these methods—and finding little of lasting spiritual significance in any of it—is chaos, organized chaos maybe, but chaos, nonetheless.
So, when men destroyed female social bonds, they destroyed our species’ only natural reference for order. Consequently, they needed an artificial one. This is most likely how the very coalitions that men initially formed, to authorize owning women, became our governments, first tribal, and then—with the advent of the written word—nation states. This also explains how our species went through the radical transformation from an entirely matriarchal, to a patriarchal one.
This forced-disbanding of sisterhoods was the first step toward our spiritual alienation, our separation from the land, and—with the advent of nation-states—toward the cataclysmic ends of all civilizations that were to come. If we are ever to regain our natural sense of order, it is essential that women restore their natural social bonds, for the sake of having a secure, stable, and sane place to bear and raise their children. This will be our first step in turning away from cataclysms, and reconnecting with one another, through organic human families, and communities of such families. It will also be our first step in reconnecting with the land, which is essential, if the environment is to be saved.
But, the purpose of restoring organic human families isn’t to save the planet. To believe we can save the planet by conscious intent is another illusion perched atop the illusion of ownership—the outrageous idea that, since we own the planet, we can do whatever we want with it, including saving it, should we decide to. We are usually unable to manage even our personal relationships to our own ends, and we are going to save the planet?! Give me a break! The fact is, no entity has the power to save the planet, including a government, be it a world government or any other. Only Nature can save the planet. But, for Nature to do so we need to start behaving like the expressions of Nature that we are, instead of like its owners. And, the first step in that transformation is giving up on the idea of ownership, itself, particularly the one that started it all—the idea that any human can make personal lifetime claims on any other human.
The Future of this Planet Lies in the Hands of Women
Instead of saving the planet, the only viable concern for any of us is our own happiness. For the sake of emphases, let me repeat: The only viable concern for any of us is our own happiness. We are happy when we are being true to our selves—by which I mean, quite specifically, our feelings of the moment, our emotions, our souls—in our relationships with those around us. Having to manage family relationships that we do not emotionally understand does not result in happiness, but in work of the most onerous kind. Is this why the consensus among modern humans is that, to have a happy marriage, we must work at it? That statement, which seems to make perfect sense to the institutionalized mind, is, in fact, an oxymoron. In Nature’s world, relationships work for us, not the other way around.
Even loving relationships, the kind that work for us, require effort. It’s just that the effort we put forth on behalf of people we love, never feels like work. Quite the opposite. That effort results in life’s greatest pleasure, sense of purpose, and meaning. Work, on the other hand, is the result of putting effort into a relationship out of a sense of duty. When it feels that we have to work at any relationship, that feeling is a message straight from our souls, that we are not serving life through that relationship, in that situation. Indeed, many divorced couples become lasting friends, once love is no longer an obligation, and they no longer have to live with one another—that is, once their souls gain control of the relationship. This happened with me and my second wife, Joyce.
Trusting our lives to the promise of rules, laws, and institutions, is how our souls originally lost control of our relationships. When we do that we are living in a false future conjured by our imagination. From that moment on we can live only in the hope of realizing that future, seldom in the reality of our feelings of the moment. In fact, living in hope requires us to largely deny our feelings of the moment throughout every day of our existence rendering us, in effect, spiritual zombies. This is the pernicious form of self-enslavement in which humanity lives today.
I am addressing this to today’s women: In my view, the future of this planet lies in your hands. The planet is in trouble, because women have long been enslaved by an age-old trust in men and laws, for the sake of having a home and family. That enslavement has deprived humanity of your central role as the only source of social order among humans. Because of that misplaced trust, your lives and your children’s lives are in trouble, and also men’s lives, and the planet, itself. A change of rules would only substitute one tyranny for another. What’s needed is for you to slip the bonds of society as we know it and bond, instead, in spiritual trust with your sisters, by anchoring your lives in those personal relationships, as all women once did. In so doing you will relinquish all subservience and trust in the promises of men, laws, rules, and money. Do this and discover that you are alive to the moment, the only place of significance to your souls, and the only place where love—and life—can possibly happen.
Women might wonder, if we did trust our lives to others, how would we get organized? What role would we each play? The answer is, life will organize you. There will be children to take care of, finances to manage, meals to prepare, rooms to clean, clothes to make, celebrations to be held, the need for leadership, and myriad other issues to attend. Certain individuals, or combinations thereof, will have the aptitude and ability to take pleasure in serving the others in their special ways. The last thing you need worry about is getting organized. Indeed, you couldn’t prevent life from organizing you, should you even try. Keep in mind, however, if you ever yield to the temptation of trying to control the future, by prescribing rules of conduct or establishing permanent job assignments, then life will no longer be able to organize you. Not only that, the rules and obligations will offend your souls. In the act of imposing rules, you will transform your spiritual home into a spiritual prison. This will lead to your eventual disbanding, for the same reasons communes—planned communities—disband.
But, what about having time to myself? Will I always have all these people around? Periods of solitude are far more accessible in extended families, than in pairbonded ones. In the first instance, others are there to support and care for one another when you’re gone, which is not the case when pair bonded.
But, most importantly, as sisterhoods made up of women who are taking care of one another and your children, you will be a force to be reckoned with—so much so that you could well face down empires. What could a state do, imprison you and institutionalize your children? Not for long it won’t!
Fatherhood is a Legal Identity, Not a Natural One
It is appealing, and seems to make sense, to believe that men should, and would, claim the children they sire. But, it’s an argument that women must start ignoring, if they are ever to regain their spiritual authority. Paternity was not known in the spiritually-free cultures in which our emotional natures evolved. Consequently, most men—there are exceptions—do not have the emotional authority to appropriately nurture “their” children, let alone own them. Regarding the plight of fathers, consider this televised feature:
Announcer: “Corbin Tyson is a father of three, who certainly takes the job of fatherhood seriously. He started the Fatherhood Project on the YouTube channel, Soul Pancake.”
Tyson (Speaking from his video): “If you’re anything like me, I’m clueless about how to be a dad. I really don’t want to screw this up. When I started this project, I wanted to talk to other dads to find out what works and what doesn’t work. I’ve been looking for this perfect quaint family that has it all figured out. I’m afraid that family doesn’t exist. Every one of us have a story about our dads. Maybe he wasn’t there, or maybe he was there too much. The funny thing is that out of all the people I’ve talked to, there are very few people that have what I would think of as a normal dad. Apparently, there is no normal. So, if you’re like me, and you don’t know what you are doing half the time, I’m with you. I’m an ordinary dad with ordinary flaws trying to do my best.”
—NBC Today Show 06.06.14
Childhood is the most important developmental period in an individual’s life. In organic human families, children are cared for primarily by their mother, with the assistance of a community of aunts, uncles and siblings. Modern children have only two caregivers, a mother and father—one of which, emotionally speaking, is often clueless regarding the role of parenthood. Little wonder that our emotionally disorientated children end up bullying each other on school playgrounds to establish a sense of self-importance, when without the communal identity a normal home would provide. Think of the number of social workers a few organic human families might replace.
Women of the World: It’s Up to You to Keep Men Focused On Serving Life
As long as women allow men to destroy female social bonds by owning children, women will never be the force on behalf of life that your children—and we men too!—so desperately need. This is true, not just here, but across the face of the planet. So long as men own your children, each of you will remain a woman alone, with no recourse but to continue to submit to whatever arbitrary notion of family we men come up with, in our ceaseless effort to satisfy our male identity crisis, through ownership and conquest. It’s a situation that not only has resulted in men grossly mistreating women for tens of thousands of years, beginning far back into prehistory, but one that our species, and life-itself, can no longer tolerate—not that it ever could.
Because men are born with a severe identity crisis, they will forever seek to satisfy it in unnatural ways—that is, in ways other than by serving the sisterhood. Should women establish a spiritual home by trusting their lives to one another, how can they prevent men from ignoring life’s real needs, by seeking fulfillment in abstract identities? I don’t really know, but here is what I would look out for:
- Secret meetings in which women are not welcome or allowed.
- Men claiming to be prophets, or presuming to speak on behalf of “God.”
- The appearance of temples or shrines.
- The use of sacrificial offerings to appease the “powers that be.”
- And finally, the most important: If any man tells any women with whom she can or cannot have sex, or worse, tells her with whom God says she can or cannot have sex, then no women should speak to him, nor in any way recognize that he exists, until he is either gone, or gets over it. (Nothing can do more harm to the genetic code that defines our species, than to limit a woman’s freedom regarding sex.)
These are the ways men deprive our species of spiritual freedom, by seeking self-importance in abstractions, future control, and sexually enslaving women. If not for this ongoing threat to life, male-female relationships would be simple and straightforward for women. As a man, let me put it this way: As long as you do not allow us to own you, we will spend our lives trying to please you. But, once we own you—as the records of history and prehistory show—not only will we become remarkably clueless about how to please you, but, all-too-often, we will spend the rest of our lives using you, much as we use any other property.
When we men witness you women bonding in spiritual trust once again, our spirits will reawaken and recognize the nucleus of a real human family when we see it. Instinctively, we will be drawn to it, and to satisfying our male identity crisis the natural way—by falling all over ourselves to serve you and your children, in any way we can. And, should your lives and the children’s come under threat, we will place our own lives on the line to protect you, and celebrate in the process, despite knowing that some of us may never return. To have people hanging around who care about you that much isn’t all bad, and neither are men. We just need a place where we can demonstrate to ourselves, and to you, who we really are—what Nature made us. We need that place as much as you do. We need a home.
Figuratively speaking, the point of this book is that, if we follow those women pictured on the cover, they will lead us, not just to a physical home, but to a spiritual home, as well. What is a spiritual home? It is one in which we feel as one with the people around us. More significantly, it is a place where the wellbeing of those around us is more important to us than our own.
That is the test for spiritual freedom. If the wellbeing of the people around us is more important to us than our own, our spirits are free. But, arriving at that state of mind is not something we can do on our own. Spiritual freedom requires a spiritual home.
Come on girls, take us home.
If light is in your heart,
You will find your way home.