CHAPTER VIII

WOMAN POWER

Power, as noted previously, is can-do-ness, the capacity to make-things-happen, the ability to accomplish results in the world. At first glance and in most conscious thinking, men are more powerful than women. It appears, if we don't look below the surface, that men are in charge of things, including women. Men do act and talk big; we "show off" and stand out. We like to think we are the more powerful of the genders, and women, for pragmatic reasons, often let us, even support, outwardly, such illusions: "You're so big and strong; I'll let you make the camp (and money)."

The male mode of dominance and aggression, being external and visible like our genitals, easily looks more powerful than the female mode of submission, where powers are most often hidden. Also, visible social powers--political, legal, and financial, are commonly held by men. Men more easily become president and make laws as well as money. Obviously, we are also physically stronger and have certain muscles which are larger than comparable female muscles. In the jungle and in war, we seem to cope better and to more easily tolerate the "blood and guts," plus physical discomforts.

All in all, men seem to be more powerful than women. Peer more carefully, however, below the thin veneer of appearances and muscles; look longer, past present tense; listen for more than what is spoken; watch for long range results rather than short term displays; and you may see that things are not what they seem. With obvious exceptions, as in all our other gender differences, femininity, by and large, is more powerful than masculinity.

As it was in all our beginnings.

Mr. Sperm, recall, did come a long way, with much aggressive movement and outward display of dominance, while Ms. Ovum demurely waited, hidden away in her silent chamber. He fought valiantly, on stage as it were, competing against astronomical odds for the honor of her hand. He did seem, at first, to be the powerful assertive force, the main character in the drama of our common origins. If we only take a casual glance.

SIZE POWER

But beyond appearances, the facts are otherwise. First, size, the most primal source of power: Mr. Sperm, remember, for all his outward show of aggression and activity, is but as a shrimp in comparison to the whale of the creature he seeks to "dominate." Were he a six-foot swimmer, she would be 30 stories high and nine blocks wide. If empty, she could swallow 250,000 of him and his enemy competitors without even crowding.⁽¹⁾

AGE POWER

Next, age is a second potential source of power. Every Mr. Sperm is but a babe in the woods, a kindergarten pupil, when he meets the ancient seeress who is older than the woman who bears her. At his oldest, he is but two months of age; she, at least 12-15 years, 72 times his maximum age, and as much as 50 years, or 240 times older than him. If there is any connection between time and power, as in the outside world, certainly Ms. Ovum, who has been around for a long time, has a distinct advantage over her thrashing and dashing, but adolescent admirer.

CONSTRUCTION POWER

Construction-wise, she also has the power advantages. Though Mr. Sperm is well-evolved for his initial role of competition, being nearly all head with a long, swimming fin-like tail, he is poorly designed for endurance or continued power. Ms. Ovum, in sharp contrast, is huge and round, protected by an outer membrane which is in turn surrounded by a second protective layer of follicle cells. In terms of stress, a geometric sphere is more stable than on oblong, irregular "tadpole-like" construction. Like a dashing knight, a sperm appears powerful, but like a castle-encased princess, surrounded by a protective mote, an ovum is relatively impregnable, unless she chooses to be.

RESOURCE POWER

The same situation prevails in regard to resources. He has few; she, many. Geared for speed and competition, Mr. Sperm "travels light." With only enough room for his necessary 23 chromosomes and just enough fuel for reaching his destination, he must even rely on Ms. Ovum for capacitating him once he arrives. Unless she supplies the extra energy of a bath of glucose, plus chemicals for wiping the proteins from his battered head, he can't even fire off the enzymes required for making his grand entrance. Newly emerging data indicates that even our older images of the sperm "forcefully penetrating" the resisting ovum may be in error. Once a sperm arrives, it may in fact be the ovum who becomes active.⁽²⁾

But these needs are no problem for her; she has abundant resources. Her relatively vast body contains not only a nucleus with her comparable 23 chromosomes waiting for connection, but also a large supply of nutrients for the new life to feed on. When the depleted tadpole meets the rested whale, he is literally "ready to die" while she still has resources to spare. Although strategy and bravery count in war, the army with the most resources is likely to prevail in the long run as, it turns out, is the case with men and women evolved to bear the fragile and tiny sperm and large enduring ovum.

Back to chromosomes for other significant differences: both Mr. Sperm and Ms. Ovum have the same number of chromosomes--23 each. Twenty-two of them, the somatic or body makers, are relatively equal in powers; but not so with the 23rd, the sex chromosomes. Ms. Ovum, you will recall, always brings an X chromosome for her Number Twenty-three; Mr. Sperm brings either an X or a Y. If it is a Y, their offspring is male; if X, she's female.

But what about these X and Y chromosomes?⁽³⁾ First, X chromosomes are from three to five times as large as Y's. Y chromosomes are among the smallest of the 46 which will eventually make the person. X chromosomes also carry a full complement of genes; over 200 X-linked genes are now known. Shorty Y chromosomes can afford to be 20% the size of their X counterparts; they have far less to do. Whereas X chromosomes have genes in proportion to their length, Y's, so far as we now know, are relatively empty. About all they have to do is initiate testes and possibly cause ear hair, though even that is not certain. Even sexual development is taken over by hormones soon after the weasel Y pushes the gonad cells to become testes rather than ovaries.

In summary, X chromosomes, like the ova which carry them, are large and powerful, containing many directing genes; Y's are smaller, with fewer genes who have less to do, and are therefore relatively weaker. Also, female persons normally get two X chromosomes, while males get only one. Of the most powerful of the two sex chromosomes, women have twice as many as men.

This initial difference in size of chromosomes and number of genes present in each ovum is thereafter reproduced in every cell of the female body. In each one of a male's comparable number of cells there is his shorter and weaker Y in contrast with her two X's. Although this difference may seem small at first, when the male is only "deficient" in one out of 46 chromosomes, multiply this tiny "weakness" by 50,000 billion, the number of cells which will eventually make up a woman or a man's body, and we can only guess at the actual number of more powerful genes she may have. The number could easily be as many as ten million million.

What we don't have to guess about, however, if we look beyond initial appearances, is the difference in actual power--can-do-ness, wielded when men bearing small Y chromosomes encounter women with two powerful X's. Attentive to external genitalia, we sometimes speak of males as being "well endowed"; were we equally attentive to internal genitals, we would recognize these superb, double X endowments of females who only appear to go lacking because they "do not have one."

As noted before, men are, in fact, like the sperm they bear, built for aggressive competition and initial impact. More muscular, we can hit harder, push others out of our way, and pick up bigger rocks. We are better, on average, than women at physical fighting, warring, and raping. In the jungle we can tolerate challenges, endure temporary discomforts, and anywhere, we are better at killing, at least initially.

In societies, we tend to get in charge of government and industry. Dominant like our sperm, we try to get on top of things, to control laws, property, and money. At these visible endeavors, we do appear to be the most powerful of the two genders. Like female genitalia, women-power, in contrast, does not appear so evident.

Here, however, are some of the arenas in which our ancient genetic differences may be reflected in present times, even when we men talk and act stronger, and do in fact control politics and purse-strings: endure-power, wait-power, select-power, pussy-power, receive-power, feel-power, think-power, body-power, look-power, touch-power, social-power, deception-power, law-power, is-power, please-power, projected-powers, and possession-power. Our superior physical strengths, reflected in compete and fight-abilities are woefully inadequate powers for coping with most of the challenges we all confront. Perhaps in the cave we were more powerful, though emerging scientific data contradicts even this; but by the time we evolved to have thrones on which to sit, the powers behind them have most often been the greater.

ENDURE POWER

Outwardly, men appear strong, tough, and durable; women, in contrast, appear to be weak, tender, and fragile. So much for appearances.^{(4) (5)} Though true of our comparable physical muscles and the fights which involve them, the differences in our other gender durabilities are considerable. Once past muscles and wars, females turn out to be more durable than males in most all other regards.^{(6) (7) (8) (9)}

Statistically, you outlive us.^{(10) (11) (12) (13)} Perhaps reflective of a deeper knowledge of our needs, we ex-husbands remarry sooner then you ex-wives. When we come to "hurting," we do act brave, especially before you; but you, as you well know, endure physical pain beyond that which we believe we can bear. What you so often embrace in child-bearing, for instance, remains awesome to us who doubt that we ever could.

The extra power inherent in endure-ability, is, I assume obvious. Once more the balance is in woman's direction.

WAIT POWER

For example: beginning with hurry-ability versus wait-ability-- what every successful sperm and ovum must have. Sperm must hurry and can't wait; even if they could, they had better not. To pause is to be passed; to lose is to die. Ova, in sharp contrast, must, and can wait. Already they've waited a life time for this magic moment; what's a few hours more? Besides, careful selection, her agenda, takes time.

Men, with our inherent urge to win, originally a life or death issue, are good at hurrying. We are built for speed; it's in our genes. We're always "in a hurry" for everything; for us, time is of the essence. We eat fast, bathe fast (when we do), dress fast, drive fast, walk fast, even stop fast. Like our perpetually young sperm which must be constantly produced because they are so expendable and die so quickly, we must move quickly; we lack wait-ability. We are more like fireflies than stars; we make a flash in the darkness, but we cannot wait for long. Even when we have no where in particular to go, still we are apt to be "in a hurry."

Ovum-bearers, on the other hand, like the ova they bear who have already waited for years before they ever appear in the egg tube, are inherently patient. Their original necessity, which will later be seen as a virtue in society, has become inherent. Women, unlike men, do know how to wait. They begin learning early, perhaps in the womb; continually, like it or not, they must practice. Often, I am told, they wonder, especially about men: What's the big hurry?

These pragmatic and predictable differences between sperm and ova and their bearers become an early source of the imbalance in power between men and women. Hurry-ability has many advantages and is often used in an attempt to dominate women. "Hurry up," eager men may say, "I can't wait all day." But, "Slow down; I'm not ready yet," turns out to be the greater power. The mythic hare makes the greater show in dashing for the finish line. But the patient tortoise and women like her, more often wins in the long run.

When hurry-ability, man's gift, is thrown against wait-ability, woman's capacity, the latter proves to be more powerful in the long run. Flashily, in mythology, the sword strikes the patient anvil, denting itself more than effecting the solid iron, as is so with the men and women from whom the myths are made. Pragmatically, both hurrying and waiting have their appropriate places; but when one is pitted against the other, the power of waiting turns out to be the greater than that of hurrying. The tortoise is the final winner.

SELECT POWER

Sperm, inherently competitive, have win-ability. If they are good at anything, it had better be at winning; otherwise, THE RACE is the end. Ova, in contrast, have no competition. Winning is irrelevant to them; there is no race. Select-ability is their contrasting gift--the power of picking.

We don't know how, but somehow an ovum picks one lucky winner; she makes a final selection from the 200 to 2,000 aspiring sperm who reach her ahead of their millions of competitors. Is she impressed by size? appearance? strength? intelligence? sense of humor? We don't know; this, among much else, remains a mystery. But we do know that she does. And after her choice is made, she emits an enzyme which detaches all other sperm. She, as it were, slams shut the door of the castle to all other adoring knights seeking immortality, consigning them to their doom.

A sperm's job is winning; an ovum's, is picking. Each has evolved to be effective at its own job, but not at that of its co-actor in this primal drama. The stakes are high: a sperm must first win; but even after successfully completing THE RACE, if he doesn't get picked, still he dies. An ovum, after her long wait, must carefully choose; she must be "picky-picky." A successful choice will continue her role in the long process of perpetuating herself and the species; a mistake now, if it doesn't cost her life also, will be paid for-- for years to come.

These facts about sperm and ova are easily seen reflected in the men and women who bear them; at issue here is the imbalance of power inherent in these contrasting abilities: his to win, hers to choose. In we who bear the sperm and ovum, the reflected arenas are twofold: dating and "doing it," getting-together and going-to-bed, romance and sex, courtship and marriage.

First, as with Mr. Sperm and Ms. Ovum in ACT I, we must get together. Boy must meet girl. But in ACT II, where she becomes the principal character, the script changes dramatically. Here, he must get picked. The second part--getting picked, is the crucial part, where the greater power lies. Somehow, like sperm, the boy or man must get to the Ovum-bearer. Otherwise, he can't be picked. But once there, once we have met her, there comes that awesome, powerful moment of selection --or worse, rejection. Will she choose me? Or not? The power inherent in this right of the female, first to recognize the male, or not, then to select him, to "make the date," or not, is, at least to males, truly awesome.

The actual fate of the rejected sperm must still be reflected in the heart of the rejected male who bears it. To us who are later refused, it usually seems as devastating as it, in fact, was to Mr. Sperm. Females, it seems to me, and with good reason where they come from, seldom understand the power of the threat which most males feel in any female rejection. How you wield your powerful right of selection on the first level of our encounters is, though unrecognized by you, among the greatest of powers we males encounter. We may fear "neither man nor beast," but we commonly quake before your power to give or withhold your pleasure and hand, to accept or reject us within or from the circle of your favor.

The power of the urge to win, the male's power, is obvious since it, like our pursuits, is visible. But the female's power of selection, being hidden, is easier to miss, at least by women who wield it. Aggressively and openly, men, like sperm, pursue females. Like peacocks, we try to impress, to get your attention, to win your favor even before introductions. Demurely, like peahens, you may ignore us, or pretend to, wielding your silent and invisible powers-of-selection to your greatest advantage. To you it may seem more like a bother than a power; to us, it is truly threatening.

PUSSY POWER

But if your select-ability is significant in the first arena of our getting together, sperm and ovum or person-to-person, it increases immeasurably as we approach arena #2: the bed room, getting together body-to-body. While we are trying to meet you, or, having passed the first test of winning the "pleasure of your company" and still engaged in courting you for the greater "pleasure of your body," while we are "wining and dining you" ("romancing," "wooing," "softening you up," as it is variously called), the power of your selection or rejection is less devastating. But the nearer we come to the point-of-it-all (at least from our standpoint, before we lie you down), the more awesome your powers of select-ability become to us.

Privately (we dare not be so open, lest we offend your "delicate" though powerful ears), we sometimes refer to this ultimate threat as your pussy power, your final choice in whether or not you will take us into yourself. Though we aggressively pursue, artfully court, even "forcing our attentions" within some shifting circle of denied acceptability, all this within the mystery of "Will she or won't she?," we are not yet totally vulnerable to your powers of selection. Still we have hope. Your ultimate threat, your pussy power, is yet before us.

But when we face that line between your "Maybe I will" and your actual "Will or won't," then to us your select-ability becomes the greatest of all powers. Your "yes or no," stated with body if not tongue, is, at this crucial juncture in time and destiny, our ultimate threat. Other powers in the world, though fearsome, pale (when our lives are not at stake), in the powerful light of your pussy power--your final choice of "yes or no."

Your rejections in the course of our getting together before sex are threatening, but as the fateful time of our final union-- or parting--nears, the power of your select-ability in comparison to our power of win-ability wins hands down. Seldom, it seems to us, do you realize, or at least let us know that you do, the magnitude of your power revealed and concealed as you uncross and cross your legs, symbolically and otherwise. But whether you know it or not, whether we admit it or not, your select-ability, especially your pussy power in this critical juncture of the Drama of Conception far and away outweighs our win-ability, insofar as comparable powers are concerned.

As with our sperm where winning is "something" but being selected is "everything!," so it is with the powers inherent in each of us males who bear them. When the power of woman's wait-ability is combined with that of your select-ability, our male powers of hurry-ability and win-ability are relatively weightless. You win, without even competing.

A male-type joke reflecting this inequity of powers goes like this: God says to Adam, Well, Adam, there's good news in Eden, and bad news; which do you want first? Says Adam, I'll take the good. God answers: The good news is that I've just invented pussy. That sounds great, replies Adam; but what's the bad news? The bad news is that I have put Eve in charge of it.

(Coincidentally?, while I was working on this section, a man told me this joke: Do you know why women are more powerful than men? I'll bite, I said; Why? Because they have half of the money and all of the pussy. Then he laughed and added: But that's not true; my wife has all our money too.)

Past self-survival, and sometimes even before, it seems that the most powerful of all male urges, perhaps reflective of a sperm's for survival, is a man's desire for sex. The power inherent in woman's having what man wants most, and also having the power of choice, does indeed appear as "bad news" to most men. One of the most scathing of all male denunciations is that a man is "pussy whipped."

But, at the same time, bringing some justice in the lawless jungle of human encounter and placing certain guarantees on the continuation of our species, it may, sometimes, be "good news" for Eve's successors.

RECEIVE POWER

Contrary to the male euphemism about women who are receptive to being sexual--"They put out," they don't. In sex, women don't put out; men do. In each sex act man puts out millions of individual sperm. Woman puts out little; in reality, she takes in. She receives much--the man into her arms, his penis into her vagina, and, sometimes, his sperm into her ovum. At the sperm/ovum level, males, then, are the ones who put out and females, the ones who take in; we are the givers, you, the receivers. We, we might say, "dish it out" (millions of sperm), while you wait (in your Fallopian Chamber) and then "take it" (or, worse, don't!). In either case, when these literal expressions become symbolic, when the sperm and ovum metaphor is translated into actual male and female experience, our current colloquialisms become more accurate. As bearers of sperm and ovum, we commonly forget the facts and talk (or at least think) of women both as the ones who put out and also take it.

Language aside, the facts are that both woman's receive-ability of sperm, and "take-it" capacity in the world, are far greater than man's spread-ability of sperm and "stand-it" capacity in the world. Though the number of individual sperm in every ejaculation is large, man's capacity for repeating the amazing performance is relatively small in comparison with a woman's capacity for repeating her part in the same performance. Woman can, if she chooses, be instantly ready for a second performance; and if not with the first man, then with a second, and a third, and so on. His once, maybe twice occasionally, is in the context of her relatively limitless capacity for again and again and again.

Though men often act as though we "always can" and women as though you "rarely can (or care to)," the facts belie appearances. In reality we males rarely can, even if we want to, and you females most always can, even if you don't want to. The truth is, men are more like barking dogs chasing cars: we are only able to maintain our vicious act as long as the cars keep driving away. When the tables are turned (mixing my metaphors), "our bark" is "bigger than our bite." You, it turns out, "always can," and we, with threat to our fragile egos, "seldom can." Your sexual capacity, though cloaked and denied, far outweighs ours, though taunted and flaunted.

And so it is with the powers inherent in each. Your continuous capacity and our periodic possibility for sexual intercourse is, in addition to fact, an apt metaphor for the power difference in our varying "take it" capacities. Although "taking it" is negatively valued by males in comparison with "dishing it out," the power inherent in receive-ability does, in time, out-weigh that in give-ability.

From the first primary sexual encounter between a sperm and an ovum, through the fabric of relationships between those who bear them, man primarily remains as the one who "puts out" and woman the one who receives. The content of what is given and what is received keeps changing; the basic mode of who gives and who receives remains primarily the same.

From the sperm to "the bacon" to words, even to abuse, men are more often the ones who "dish it out" and women the ones who "take it." After providing the initial sperm, the Sperm-bearer himself is traditionally known as the family "provider." His major role in family life is providing the resources needed for family survival--protection, food, and supplies"the bacon."

Although women are genetically better with words, language, and conversation, when it comes to male/female talk, men tend to be the talkers and women the listeners; again, men "put out" the words; women take them in. They listen. Men are good at telling jokes, stories, and lies. We like to explain things (as I am attempting here), even to tell women how to do things. Conversely, men, as every woman knows, are notably poor listeners. Good at telling, when it comes woman's turn to talk, men grow soon deaf. Even when we appear to be listening, we are often planning our rejoinders while pretending to hear. Like verbal peacocks, men like to strut around in conversations, "showing off," telling what we have done. Literally, men rarely con-verse--that is, share-verses; more often we deliver monologues.

Men, of course, know this about other men (sometimes even about ourselves). When we truly wish to be heard, we rarely go to another man. Women, we know, are the listeners, the ones who will be able "to receive us," to "take in" what we wish to say, to "understand us."

As with sperm, resources, and words, so with abuse. Regrettably for women, men also "dish out" the majority of the overt abuse in relationships. Most sexual molestation, rape, physical punishment, and bodily harm--even murder, is inflicted by men on women; not the other way around. Men are rarely hurt physically by women; women often are by men. Few men ever seem to grasp the extent of physical danger in which all women continually live while around men, both in public and private. Women everywhere, even with those they love, are at constant physical risk when men are present.

Fortunately for them, women, like the ova they bear, are able to "take it." As noted before (see Endure Power), when it comes to endurance, the balance of power is in woman's arena. And so it is with receive-ability. Man is better able to "dish it out" in most arenas; but woman is more capable of reception, of "taking it in," as well as "taking it" period.

The disadvantages of such "taking it" are obvious. Although listening (taking in words) can be temporarily satisfying, the greater pleasures, insofar as men know, lie in talking--in being and expressing ourselves verbally. Women limited to "being the listeners" with men who primarily "tell things" without "really talking" are truly at a disadvantage. Certainly the negative side of all forms of physical abuse is obvious. In any immediate situation, the "giver" of words or abuse has the advantage over the one limited to "taking it."

But when we come to the issue of power, the situation changes. Overt "dishing it out" may prevail at first or on the surface; but the ability to "take it" more often wins in the long run. Receive-ability, when compared with give-ability, is, in time, the more powerful. Talking (putting out words), for example, orating, speaking, preaching, may be initially effective; but hearing (taking in words) proves the more powerful in time.

Professionally, I am both a preacher (one who "puts out" words) and a counselor (one who "takes in" words). Often I have wished that the power of advising was as great as the power of listening; but alas, I have not found it to be so. The results of my counseling, where I have said little, by far outweigh, as best I can tell, the results of my preaching, where I have said much. I suspect that every women, even when she regrets the fact, realizes that she can wield greater power with her ears than with her words. The tongue, as the Bible says, is a "little member" which effects great things; but the ear, we counselors and most women, I believe, know, is a "big member," effecting even more. Especially, in the long run.

Even when it comes to arguing, where both men and women "put out" words, woman's greater receive-ability gives her the distinct and final advantage. There is a truism among men, so well known that it rarely needs to be stated, but which I will again: A man can never win an argument with a woman. Other factors (freedom with words, better memory, and greater overall verbal ability) enter in; but the trump card always lies in woman's final ability to "take it," to simply walk away and say, "Well, have it your way." Man, to win, must win verbally; but woman can lose the argument and still win the encounter. Her greater receive-ability allows her to "lose without losing," which is to be the final winner. Woman can, so to speak, "take losing" without losing herself. Man can't. This gender difference, whatever its source, becomes an immense power advantage which woman can wield even without becoming aware of the fact.

Even less often recognized is this same advantage in the regrettable arena of physical abuse. With full recognition of the suffering and extended mistreatment, even defilement, of women by men, we need not ignore the powers which are commonly wielded in this last arena of "taking it." Historically, on-going male abuse of women is currently being revealed in our society. About time! There can be no reasonable justification for the continued physical domination by males which often takes the form of debasement of women. Fortunately for society and men, as well as women, battered and abused females are finally beginning to speak up.

But one question is reasonably raised by caring men in each such revelation: "How did she take it so long?" Rarely could a male have taken the physical abuse which females so often have, without doing something drastic. Many other factors, of course, are involved in such complicated situations; there are no easy answers. But one, I believe, often is the issue of power. Without excusing the perpetrators of physical pain and domination, we may also respect the power which sufferers sometimes wield over those who abuse them.

The overt powers of domination are, of course, obvious; the covert powers of submission are less often revealed or even brought into the light of consciousness. Nevertheless, they exist. Martyrs who die obviously lose in the long run; but martyrs who "take it,"without final destruction, often achieve valuable rewards, even in the course of their submissions. Up close, we tend to see only the suffering; but at a distance we may sometimes discern the control which martyrs may wield in political, family, and personal arenas.

The suffering of the oppressed deserves all the sympathy and relief which society can bring; still, the powers wielded by those who "take it" may be recognized without any justification given to the systems which maintain their physical oppression, and certainly not to those individuals, usually male, who "dish it out."

Among such powers which may be wielded in male/female relationships are physical resources (pay for "taking it"), adoration, humiliation, and ultimate control. Though often hidden, each of these powers can be awesome in human relationships. The first, resources, is most obvious. Those who "take it" are commonly "taken care of," to some extent, by those who have "dished it out." Just as the politically oppressed are "provided for" by those who "lord it over" them, so, often, are the physically oppressed. A master cannot be a master without slaves; consequently, slaves must be "taken care of," at least minimally. Recognizing the unfairness of compensations (masters of all sorts rarely pay even minimum wages), we need not ignore the often meager rewards to those who serve. The most basic of all human instincts, namely, for survival (44 of 46 chromosomes devoted to the task), is generally served, even by the cruelest of task masters.

Welfare, though unfair, is still a resource; and, to translate the comparison, husbands who take physical advantage of wives, even abusing them sexually and bodily, are likely to keep bringing home as least some of their "bacon." And, for survival's sake, "bacon" counts. Given the additional unfair fact that men can make money more easily than can women, females, with inherent receive-abilities, may wisely barter a certain amount of abuse for some access to a man's resources.

Outside the home, men who abuse their mistresses also "take care of them" to some extent. Prostitutes get some pay, and even pimps provide needed services to those whom they misuse. The point is, recognizing abuse need not erase woman's power to enhance her resources, even though minimally, through her capacity to "take it."

Past physical resources necessary for survival, other spiritual powers may become even more significant. Adoration is one. Whatever the reasons, we humans have a tendency to worship martyrs. Even while being "done in," those who "take it" are likely to be secretly if not openly admired by those who use and abuse them. Perhaps guilt, though denied by masters, is the source of this perverted tendency to spiritually "lift up" those we "put down on" physically. Do we envy their ability to "take it"? Do we assuage our guilt for public domination with a poultice of private admiration of those we subdue? Do we pay for our pride with a secret shame which the subdued take glory in? Does martyrdom hold an inherent self-elevation, even in flagellation?

The roots of domination, including sadism, remain elusive to understanding. But somehow, even before martyrs are dead, we begin to privately elevate them. Sainthood and statues may come later, but while still in the process of being "put down," abusees may somehow recognize and profit from this paradoxical psychic phenomenon. The power of achieving spiritual affirmation, even at cost of physical degradation, may somehow be discerned as "worth it."

Imagine, for example, a girl being molested over an extended period of time by an adult male: even in the midst of physical abuse, threats of retribution "if she tells," and private shame in the process, she may still be the recipient of personal affirmation by her abuser. Whatever his reasons, whatever her costs, still she "gets attention." Even if the attention is negative and painful, she may know she is being recognized as an individual in her own right, a real person instead of "just a child" or family member. Such elevation into selfhood is a valuable human commodity, whatever its cost. The power such a child wields in gaining the attention of even an abusing adult--his smiles, his touch, his obvious desires which she somehow evokes, his fears revealed in his threats, their secret time together as well as the secret they share--all these realities which elevate one to selfhood may be deemed worthy, at least at the time, of the prices of abuse.

Closely related to the powers inherent in being elevated in the attention of another, sought as an individual for whatever reason, are the contrasting powers of humiliation. There is an old saying: he who laughs last laughs best. And so with she. Paradoxically, martyrs--those being "put down," but not yet "done in," may have "the last laugh." The capacity to "take the best shot" of another, and yet remain present, can be a powerful source of humiliation to an abuser. Those who abuse often take a perverse pleasure in their domination, whatever its form; but when an abusee is able to "out last" her abuser, to "take all he has to give" and still survive, she may finally humiliate him. Such a spiritual victory--the final humiliation of the abuser, even without trophies, may outweigh the physical pains of the abuse itself.

Finally, and often most hidden of all, there is the ultimate control which those who submit may wield over those who appear to dominate them. Masters, of course, are overtly in control; but slaves, covertly, hold the final power. Masters may come and go, but if the slaves go there is no kingdom. Masters may punish; but domination cannot exist without those who submit. At last then, those who submit, short of death or unbearable pain, exercise the final power.

This fact, though unrecognized in an immediate human situation of female abuse, may be experientially operative. On some deep level of awareness, those who experience even extreme degrees of personal degradation at the hands of another may realize the hidden weakness of the master and the ultimate control which the slave wields. Much personal abuse can be inwardly justified with any awareness of this final power.

To summarize: men are better able to "dish it out" in many ways, giving us an edge in overt domination. Women, however, have greater receive-ability-- from the beginning levels of ovum over sperm all the way to old women over old men. Between conception and death, where we all of course live, the covert power of female receive-ability, even when accompanied by regrettable abuse, tends to outweigh the overt power of male give-ability. The capacity for "taking it," it turns out, is more powerful than that of "dishing it out." And here too, woman holds the trump card.

FEEL POWER

Emotions (from Latin ex = out, plus movere = to move; hence, to move out or to stir up) are, by definition, powerful. Emotion is the root of motivation. Emotions motivate; they "move us" as well as others. And, as everyone knows, "women are more emotional than men." Men "don't feel as much as women." For all the advantages which males commonly assume because we are "not as dictated by feelings," one serious disadvantage is the loss of the power inherent in being emotional.

Because women have more feel-ability, and because emotions are a physiological as well as psychological source of power, females also hold the power advantage in this area. "Tear power," the vulnerability of most men to a woman's tears ("I just can't stand," men commonly say, "to see a woman cry.") is a familiar example. Simply through their embraced ability to cry--to shed tears in a man's presence--females are able to wield considerable psychological power. Men may sometimes ignore a woman's words, but when a female begins to cry, most of us are moved to action. A woman's tears may be embarrassing to her; to men, however, they are often powerful.

This psychological power, rooted in the male's assumed inability to stand tears, is separate and apart from the actual physical power generated through experiencing emotions--whichever the feelings may be. Whatever we may consciously think about emotions, they are inherently full-of-power, that is, BTU's of real energy--do-ability are generated in our bodies whenever we are emotional. Even if we prefer otherwise, or don't know how to handle the power, the fact of its presence is real. Fear, for example, makes us able to do things not ordinarily possible, such as, to run faster.

Men, in general, tend to respond to reality through their minds rather than their feelings. First they "think about things." Women, in contrast, tend to respond more readily through their feelings. Men ask, "What do you think about it?" Women more commonly wonder, "How do you feel about it?" Men say, "If it makes sense ('thinking'), do it." Women say, reflecting their different orientation to reality, "If it feels right, do it." The overall result is that men, in general, are more familiar and comfortable with thoughts, while women are more at home with feelings. Since emotions generate more physical power than thoughts, the end result is that the power balance, when it comes to feel power, is tilted in woman's favor.

This is particularly true in regard to two natural human emotions: fear and sorrow. When humans are threatened in any way, we are genetically evolved to feel fear (half of the "fight or flight" emotion). When we lose (or fear we may) any thing or person to whom we have been attached, we naturally feel sadness. These two primal emotions are common to humanity, to men and women. Women, however, have more practice with and acceptance of these primal feelings. Certainly social training, and probably genetic inclinations also, favors male suppression of fear and grief. From earliest ages boys try to avoid and hide their fears and not to admit any losses. "Big boys don't cry," is a male truism.

In contrast, girls are not only granted social permission to be openly fearful and sad, but, as noted above, learn early that their tears can be powerful in moving males to action. What is shameful for boys is powerful for girls. A girl, for example, can, without loss of social esteem, be openly afraid of a roach or mouse. A boy, however, is "supposed to be brave." Even if he feels the same fear, he learns early to suppress any show, and often even awareness, of the emotion. The same is true with loss and the natural grief which follows; girls, allowed to cry, are supported in open expressions of sadness. Boys pretend it didn't happen. "Oh, it didn't hurt," they learn early to say, while suppressing their own awareness of feeling.

The end result of such training is: men out of touch with their feelings of fear and grief, and women with much experience in embracing these emotions. The relevant point here is the imbalance of emotional powers resulting from this learning experience. Women more readily have the physical power generated by fear and grief; men, through suppression, more often don't.

In addition to the loss of physiological powers, men are further hindered by the psychological demands of suppression itself. Cut off from fearing (and the power it generates, for example, for running fast), men must also fight fear itself. As President Roosevelt et al. warned: The only thing we have to fear is fear itself--the we, of course, being us men; women, practiced with fear itself, may not "like" being afraid, but they do not have the additional burden of also having to fight fear itself. Men have not only their natural physical fears (which they share with women), but also their secondary psychological fears of being afraid.

Psychological suppression, in spite of its social and sometimes pragmatic advantages, takes a great amount of energy--that is, power. Men, when they come to situations of threat and loss, where the powers of fear and grief are naturally generated, are not only cut off from these powers, but must also expend other power in suppressing these natural feelings. They lose, for example, the power of fear in the physical event, and must expend additional energies in the psychological process of denying their fear.

Fear may be considered embarrassing, but the additional fear-of-fear (being "afraid of being afraid") is a considerable power-drain with which most males must constantly live. In this unstable psychological position, we are typically threatened not only by our own fears of fear and grief, but also by the women who have embraced such powers. Your female capacity to live with fear mirrors too clearly our own treat of fear, giving you an additional psychological advantage over us. Easily you may laugh and accept your fears. You know the release and power of having "a good cry." Not so with us males. Your "good cries" are terribly threatening to us, not only moving us to action, but also reminding us of our own unembraced emotional capacities.

When we come to feel-ability and feel-threat, women inevitably hold the power advantage over men.

THINK POWER

Men are commonly proud of their reason-ability and often believe that women are deficient in think-ability. "Women are so unreasonable," is a familiar male complaint, at least among ourselves. And it is true that in two particular types of thinking, namely, linear and spacial, men seem to hold natural advantages (see previous section on objective thinking.) Linear thinking is focused, like a train on a track, heading toward a single goal or conclusion. It is the basis for logic and reason. Linear thinking is noted by its exclude-ability; thinking linearly, focused on some particular subject, one excludes from awareness all data which is related to any other subject, plus, usually, that data which contradicts the thinker's premises and aims. Linear thinking is like arithmetic: one-two-three-four, etc.; and one plus one = two. It is especially useful in aiming at a target or killing an animal or enemy.

Spacial or global thinking, a spin-off on linear thinking, is the ability to hold images in the mind's eye, to rotate them around and look at each from various other perspectives. For example, with spacial thinking, one can visualize a map, turn it around in one's mind and see it from another direction--this without having to rotate the actual map. Or, in a larger global sense, one can hold an idea in mental space and "look at it" from several directions, separating out irrelevant or contradictory ideas, excluding them from awareness with basic linear think-ability.

In these two specialized forms of mental activity, linear and spacial thinking, men do seem to hold the genetic edge. More easily we can "stick to the point," "be logical about facts," read maps, design bridges, and "make decisions" which require excluding data. And when we are dominant and "in charge," we often try to reserve the name thinking for these two relatively minor forms of mental activity in which we specialize. Given our own way, we identify thinking and logic (train-track thinking), erroneously concluding that notions which "don't make sense" aren't thinking at all. With this massive error, we can "reasonably" conclude, excluding with this same ability of ours, huge amounts of data to the contrary, that "women just can't think," since you "aren't reasonable" as we are. Regrettably for you, and us in the long run, you sometimes fall for our judgments.

If men more naturally think in a linear fashion, women with equal ease think in a circular mode. We males draw lines, excluding data; you females draw circles, including as much as you can discern. While we are mentally busy trying to "stick to the subject," ignoring all data we do not immediately recognize as connected, you are equally diligent in trying to include every bit of information which might possible be at all connected.

We, for example, can look at a picture, ignoring the frame; you can't. We can buy it without a thought as to where it will be placed in the house; you can't. We can see only certain objects in a room, ignoring others; you see everything in the room, including "how it feels." As with objects, so with ideas. Thinking circularly rather than linearly, you reach out, in your mind's eye, to take in every bit of data which is available to you. Our trouble with "including everything" is paralleled by yours with "leaving anything out." We shop like we think; men focus on the goal, what we want to buy; women want to see everything before you "make up your mind."

Linear or logical type thinking is probably a left-brain function, while circular or inclusive thinking seems to be focused in the right hemisphere of the brain. Men, we may generally say, are more "left-brained"; women, more "right-brained." The right-brain, as best we can now tell, also seems to be more connected with intuition or collective data from past experience. Women, consequently, are better able to think intuitively as well as inclusively. In addition, as noted above, women, with greater emotional connections, are also able to know more about what they feel, to tap the vast reservoir of emotional knowledge acquired genetically and in growing up. Men, conversely, threatened by fear and grief in particular, must waste some of their own mental powers in "trying not to think" about these feelings (the mental act of suppression).

Genetics also give females another advantage in the dimension of overall thinking. The female corpus callosum, the connective tissue between the two hemispheres of the human brain, is statistically larger, on average, than that of males.⁽¹⁴⁾ This means that data is more easily and quickly transmitted between each half of the brain in women than in men. "Left-brain" type thinking, men's forte, which is also available to women, is more easily enhanced with female type "right-brain" intuition.

Whereas the additional data may in fact make it more difficult for females to "make up their minds," than literally more "narrow minded" men, their slower decisions, including more information, are likely to be sounder in the long run or in the larger picture of reality.

We men like to maximize the advantages of our linear type thinking, self-protectingly "putting down" on your circular type thought which threatens us. Focused on the "small picture," we more easily build pyramids of ideas, as well as on the ground, which point toward some conclusion. We also aggrandize ourselves with our pyramids as well as ideas. Even so, you can, we hate to admit, "think circles" around our severely limited mode of thought. Although we have the advantages of the "little picture," you hold those of the "big picture."

And, when it comes to power, "big picture" advantages usually prevail in the long run over the limited uses of logic in the "small pictures" in which we men specialize.

Two related issues--lose-ability and mystery-tolerance, add to the distinct power advantages females hold in the overall arena of thinking. As noted elsewhere, sperm must win or die, whereas an ovum has no competition, can wait, and often may choose from thousands of options. With their bearers, it seems that the same limitations and advantages prevail in the realm of mental dominance.

Men, identified with their "thinking," take losing arguments (mental competition) personally. To lose an argument, for a man, is a personal defeat. But women, more identified with feelings than with thoughts, are less personally threatened in verbal encounters. If, for example, a discussion becomes heated (or tiresome or boring or anything else) a women can stop without experiencing a loss of personal integrity. "Well, have it your way," she can easily say without losing her sense of herself. "If you're going to get upset about it, let's just drop the subject." Easy for her, but often devastating for the man who, perhaps reflective of his sperm beginnings, "feels like he will die" if he loses.

Even in the midst of such mental encounters, women have an unfair power advantage over males. Words, being the essential tools of logical thinking, the material of which "reasonable" ideas are formed, tend to become sacred for men. Words are assigned specific definitions which become a part of a man's identified sense of himself. Our word, we like to say, is our bond--that is, we are bonded with our words.

Women, conversely, identified with feelings rather than thoughts, "heart" rather than "mind," are bonded elsewhere. Your heart, you might say if you cared to identify yourself, is your bond. But not your word. Words, to woman's inclusive mode of thought, are simply slippery little sounds, certainly not sacred icons with which to identify oneself. Their meanings, in woman's way of thinking, are freely changed at will. "Turn left," for example, may actually mean "turn right," if that is what a woman has in her mind. "Oh, you knew what I meant," she can easily say. Or, "I'll be ready at 8:00 o'clock," a very specific statement to a male whose word is his bond, has no essential connection with chronology to a feeling-identified woman. What she more likely means is, "I'll be ready at 8 if I feel comfortably dressed by then."

These two female abilities, seldom found in males--to lose an argument without losing one's self--and to change the definition of words at will, place women in an overwhelmingly powerful position in verbal exchanges with men. Another truism among men (previously noted) is: There is no use to argue with women; you can never win. Even, in those rare instances when a man wins an immediate verbal exchange, other female powers are apt to make her the winner in the long run. As men also know, even if we win the argument, we lose the evening.

Woman's ability to walk away from an argument, or a man, gives her power advantages in the realm of thinking which far outweigh those inherent in linear, left-brain type logic, in which we men pride ourselves. Your capacity to grant such permissions as, "Well, you can think that if you want to," and to live well with no trophies, place you in positions of immense mental power.

But these edges in power are actually small in comparison with those which accrue from female ability to tolerate mystery--even, often, to love it. We men commonly live within the small circle of our "understanding"that is, of "what we can see," mentally speaking. We are usually threatened at a profoundly deep level when we cannot mentally grasp something. Remember, we identify and orient ourselves around our "thinking"our "understanding" of reality. Then, to protect our sense of ourselves, we weave mental structures around the unknown; we construct theories, theologies, and philosophies which we take to be "the truth." We sincerely believe, most of us, that we "know how things work." What we don't, we avoid.

Females, on the other hand, with much practice at standing and waiting in the continual presence of the unknown (When will your period, for instance, begin? Or end? When will he call? Or will he? Etc. Etc.), seem to develop an immense tolerance for "not knowing," a capacity which few men ever acquire. Even when we obviously (to you, that is) don't know, we convince ourselves that we do. If we "don't understand it, "whatever "it" is, we either pretend that we do, or we avoid the subject. In either case, we seldom develop a tolerance for mystery. The unknown threatens us; so we immediately cloak it with a theory which we promptly forget is only a fabrication of our own limited "left-brain" logic.

"Understanding," of course, is extremely useful when it actually correlates with how reality works; but of the two, man's understanding and life's mysteries, the latter is by far the greater. There is much more which is not known than which is known by any of us. Consequently, men trapped in the smaller circle of our own assumed "understanding," threatened by the vastly greater sphere of the unknown (about anything) are constantly vulnerable to the larger real world.

Women, more capable of tolerating mystery without personal threat, are at a distinct advantage in the realm of thinking. Reducing the world to the size of our own "understanding," we males unwittingly cut ourselves off from mental powers which remain readily available to women. For example, fearing mystery, we are forced into defensive positions, which always cost power, whenever we "don't know" something. Even asking for directions when we "don't know where we are" can be threatening to males. Few females, knowing no such fear of "not knowing," understand this widespread male phenomenon. (Female joke: Why do we need female astronauts? Answer: So we can get directions when we get lost in space.)

Harry Belefonte sang a Jamaican song with this line repeated over and over: "The woman is smart-er, the woman is smart-er; she's smart-er than the man in every way." Well, perhaps not in "every way"such as linear thinking; but with her larger corpus callosum, her ready access to intuition and emotional knowledge, her separation from mental self-identification, her freedom to use words without making them sacred, plus her tolerance for mental mysteries, she is certainly at a distinct power advantage in overall think-ability.⁽¹⁵⁾

BODY POWER

Every boy has an extended period of intimate connection with a woman's body, which no girl ever has with a man's body. Woman's womb is the genesis of his all. For nine dark months the stuff and sustenance of every boy's life is drawn from woman's body. Woman's vulva is the archway of his first triumphal struggle and entry to the outer world. With the coming of sight, the first visible life-giving source is woman's breast; the first comfort, woman's bosom; the first security, woman's presence; the first affirmation of self, woman's smile; the first love, woman's self, mediated through her body.

These warm and wealthy memories of Woman's Body as the source of life's finest offerings, written during the most impressionable of all times, forever remain, I believe, indelibly imprinted in the mind if not genes of every boy turned man. When thinking and words are added to feeling and knowledge, the wonder of Woman's Body, known not from fantasy but from primal experience, will most clearly be seen as magical. Whatever other wondrous powers may appear in later life, none are likely to ever equal the awesome power of Woman's Body, known first-hand before the time of mind and time began. Never again can any other single source bear the combined gifts of creation, sustenance, comfort, security, affirmation, love--all the essential elements of good life.

To every boy Woman's Body, in its wonder-filled manifestations, is truly magical, no matter the quality of the mothering which surrounds it. God for us all, no matter how paternalistic we later become, is first posited in Woman's Body.

No girl can ever have this magical experience with any man's body. After birth, when a man first becomes available to her, the die is already cast for God-as-woman. At best, father only appears, if at all, after the creative act is over; then, even if he dares to hold her, he is not soft and comforting; he has no breasts for body-giving milk to sustain her; his bosom is firm; his tenderness, if any, is awkward.

Because man's body is different, it may in time become a source of curiosity and fantasied magic; but never the real magic which will forever remain the private gift of Woman's Body only. Later, when the powers of the 45th and 46th chromosomes, with their sex genes, are overtly activated--added to the self-sustaining first 44--the boy's "gene eyes" will already be powerfully encoded to look for women's bodies. "Looking," as noted before, is the first and best means of finding the finest available repositories for male sperm cells longing for union and replication, specifically, for young, fertile and firm, breasts and thighs bodies bearing ova ready for impregnation.

To the primal, experiential, first-hand knowledge of the awesome power of the first woman's body, eons of genetic knowledge for wisely finding other women's bodies is now added. Real magic born of what-has-been is supplemented with the additional wonder of fantasied magic of what-might-be--with Woman's Body as the source of both.

Knowledge of the power and pleasure of nocturnal emissions and self-induced orgasms is easily projected on to the bodies of women whose "tits and asses" fuel the present fantasies and are at the same time so reminiscent of the breasts and wombs which were the source of past magic. The encoded genetic knowledge about where sperm should go, so long known that no consciousness is required, is made conscious reflected in women's bodies, especially those most likely to be pregnable.

When primal memory of one's personal past is added to genetic memory of eons of reproduction past, quite reasonably and understandably it seems to the opening minds of boys' awareness that Woman's Body must certainly be the grandest of all "turn ons." Can there be a man alive who does not believe, at least on some primal level of preconsciousness, that Woman's Body is indeed the source of all magic? Certainly of that which is most available and believable?⁽¹⁶⁾ Girls' eyes too are genetically trained for woman's role in the Reproductive Drama; but that role is different. Security, recall, not sex, is her larger need. A good sperm, of course, is necessary; but a good man is rarer and more needed for the extended process which is only begun by a sperm. Woman's genetic eyes, with her ova so rare and valuable and the process so extended and demanding, are well trained to be wiser in a woman's search. A handsome male body, though fine, is simply not enough for her discriminating genes' requirements. For man's genes, eyes are enough; but for woman's, ears are also necessary. Good sex, man's role, may be found through looking only; but good security can be deceptive to looks. Appearances can lie more easily about security than about sex. Romance, it turns out, is better for finding a good man.

What this means is that a man's body, for his role in the Reproductive Drama, is less relevant to woman than a man's other qualities which may lead to commitment and therefore a woman's and her baby's security. When this real genetic need for much more than a man's body is coupled with the absence of any early magic with a first man's body, even the possibility of a magical male body becomes remote for any woman. Is there a woman alive who can know the wonder which every man alive inherently knows about the magic of the opposite gender's body?

I think not. The power of any man's body to woman cannot reasonably compare with the power of every woman's body to man. Your bodies both create us at first, and "turn us on"or so we commonly believe later; ours can never do the first for you, and only partially do the second. Our butts, for example, may be "cute" to you, when you are honest, but they can never hold the power which your asses always do for us. Our penises may become a source of curiosity, mildly inviting you to look; but they can never hold the awesome power of your womb to us. How could they? You have never been there. They have no memory attached. And of course, we have no breasts, little softness, and are usually lacking when it comes to affirmation and love.

Differing experiences while growing up in our society may also greatly influence our attitudes toward bodies of the opposite gender. Long before puberty, a boy's genetic eyes begin to rove toward sources where later developing sperm may be deposited, namely, girl's bodies. With so many similarities, the transition of focus from mother's body to girls' bodies is relatively easy to make. They too are similarly shaped, smelled, and softened. Girls act in so many ways like mothers. Even before breasts swell their bosoms and genes spread their thighs, tenderness and comfort are apparent there. And primal memories, no doubt, are evoked.

For boys, the earlier real magic of mother's body is only enhanced by later fantasied magic of girls' bodies. For us, its more of the same with the added wonder of the mysteries of becoming sexual, which you also seem to hold. After all, you do, it seems to us, "turn us on." Alone, we're mostly "off"; with you we are usually "on." Reasonably, as we try to be, there is only one logical conclusion. You "do it to us"; you hold the powers, both of creation and resurrection. To us, through your body, you are closer than God and now hold the powers we will later be told He has.

Not only do your bodies remind us of mother and "turn us on" like a Goddess, you do not hurt or threaten us with them. Even if you mature before we do, you are not inclined to aggression as are we. We need fear no pain from you; pleasure, in all its diverse forms, is what you represent (and sometimes bring) to us.

For you however, whose genitalia is turned inward, society brings an opposite kind of experience while moving toward our common puberties. First, as noted, you are not graced with wondrous prenatal memories of the bodies of your opposite gender. You, like us, come from woman's body also. No man's womb exists to color all your later experiences in outside life. Like us, your nine month's education before light comes is transmitted through woman's body. You can never look longingly back to any man's body, fantasying a heavenly return to an earthly womb.

Then, when a male body did appear in your childhood, if ever it did, your comparably contact with it was relatively rare and never as nourishing as was both yours and our experience with a female's body. More likely, even with the best of fathers, the male body was first experienced more as a threat than a comfort. Even when men strive to be soft, tender, and caring, our bodies are harder and better geared for aggression than comfort.

In addition, even fathers, being male, bring their own projections to any female body, daughter's included. When other male bodies are around, the threats are likely to expand even further. These projections include both the magic of mother and the sexual "turn ons" of female bodies in general. Incest taboos of society notwithstanding, gene eyes, which have learned to look before any society was evolved, look sexually, regardless.

All this looking, for mother and sex, is directed, even if discretely, at every little girl who has men in her early life, long before she is ever aware of the powers of her body or her own sexual impulses. But if she pays attention, as femininity is inclined to do, she cannot but realize, even without understanding its meaning, that she can wield power with most males in some mysterious way. By her tears, her smiles, her cute ways, her natural movements, plus, of course, the covering and uncovering of her body, the crossing and uncrossing of her legs, she can evoke male attention and reaction. She would have to be blind and dumb not to realize, even on some deep level of feminine awareness, the strange power of her body when she comes to relating with males.

Freud projected, I think, and erroneously imagined that all little girls envy what all boys have. Perhaps some of that jealousy too, but primarily, it seems to me, all little boys, perhaps Sigmund included, look enviously toward the bodies which all little girls inherit, evoking our primal memories of mother and calling for the attention of our genetic eyes as well. The available evidence is certainly more in favor of men looking with envy and desire toward women's bodies than vice versa. Perhaps, as he speculated, females "repress" and "compensate"; more likely, with good reason, they "could simply care less."

And since estrus went underground some 100 thousand or so years ago, females of all ages have been constantly under threat of the genetically indiscriminate and morally unconscionable male penis. The threat of rape, certainly of some form of sexual molestation, which no female around males is ever far from, always looms heavy in every girl's everyday experience, even in the supposed safety of her own home and family.

When the natural aggression and inevitable sexuality inherent in men's bodies are combined, in any measure, in the actual experience of every little girl, male-bodily-threat might be the name of common female experience. Not only is man's body devoid of magical memories and limited in its genetic interest to female eyes, but most often it is more of a physical and emotional threat than a pleasure.

In regard to power, the end result of these vastly differing personal and genetic experiences with the bodies of our opposite gender is that men and women are left with contrasting sources of power when we come to each other: Woman's Body is an immense source of positive power to man; man's body, though of limited interest, is more likely to be a source of negative power to woman. He wants hers; she tries to avoid his.

When woman so chooses, her body--with its projected memories and natural promises, is perhaps the most powerful of all the weapons in her arsenal for success in the manipulation of men. Men, who never seem to tire of wishing their bodies were comparably appealing to women--plus trying to expose themselves and make it so, or to recognize and accept the reasons why they are not and never can be--live in bodies which remain relatively impotent in their comparable quests of manipulating women.

When it comes to body, woman holds the trump cards; man, at best, follows suit with his deuces.

LOOK POWER

Body power is first mediated through the eyes--that is, through its exposure or hiddenness, usually an artful combination of the two. Sight is the first trigger for the love-memories of mother's body and the love-making promises of any woman's body. And men, whatever else we may be, are lookers. We can't help it; it's both in our minds and genes. We may learn to hide our desire to see, cloaking it with discretion or even suppressing it from our own awareness; still, as best I can tell, we are all deeply directed and drawn to look at the bodies of women.

The female side of this same coin (discussed previously), is the inherent urge to attract, to appear "good looking." If men are drawn "to look," women are, with equal or greater instinct, drawn to "look good." Certainly we males want to "take a good look." And certainly you females want "to look good enough" to make us take it. The key part of this genetic contract is probably in the last phrase: to "make us..." Make is what power is all about.

The urge within males to look at and for females, whatever its origin, is powerful and profound. No comparable visual curiosity, past the urge to look good in a mirror, is at all evident in woman. Glancing at males--casually looking, may, of course, be a preliminary step in the comparable female quest for finding a good man. But a male's looks are only for openers; sperm strength may be implied visually, but security, woman's greater need, is best discerned through hearing and courtship.

Since, then, it is primarily women's bodies that men are drawn to see, and not vice versa, women hold the balance of look power. Men want to see women's bodies more, with good reason, than women want to see men's bodies. Eye data, which is largely adequate for man's genetic agenda, is grossly inadequate for woman's part in the same drama. She needs to know much more than her eyes can ever tell.

Through the mediation of her looks, revealing and concealing, women are easily able to wield great power over males of all ages. Little boys yearn to peep, early on. "Show me yours," they often plead, and vainly promise, "and I'll show you mine." And we never, it seems "get too old to look"even when that is all we can do.

With good looks and naught else, a woman can accomplish amazing feats in a man's world which nothing short of status and wealth--symbols of security-making potential, can ever wield with a woman. Insofar as power is concerned, pretty wins easily over handsome.

TOUCH POWER

When one of my grandsons was three years old he came home from nursery school and announced to his mother, "I like to sleep in the kitchen at nap time." "Well, that's fine, Todd," his mother replied, "but why do you like the kitchen?" "Because that's where the girls sleep," he responded. "But you're not a girl," she replied, as though he might not know. "Oh, I know that, Mother," Todd said with a tone of exasperation, "but I like to sleep with the girls, so I can touch them."

This inclination of little boys (and big ones) to touch girls, with the choice most often lying with the girls, becomes another significant source of power differential. Touch power--the capacity to make things happen through human touch, is, of course, a second spin-off from body power. Touching is simply one more way of wielding the powers which are psychologically, if not genetically, inherent in the bodies which may be touched--or not.

For clarity, we may divide touch power into two kinds: permission to touch and initiative in touching. Because males so commonly want to touch females, a certain amount of power is inherent in the right to allow that touch, or to hold out, using the power of permission to achieve other results. "I'll let you touch me if...," is an example of such power wielded. The statements become even more powerful when the entire transaction is made non-verbally by moves and withdrawals, with no words spoken.

The second and often more powerful form of touch power is in a woman's touch itself, that is, her touching, rather than merely being or not being touchable. A woman may wield power first by letting a man touch her or by denying his touch, then by touching him herself. By, for example, casually placing her hand on a man's arm, or briefly brushing against his shoulder, a woman may often exercise power over him, strongly influencing what his next actions will be.

The power, of course, is not inherent in the physical contact, but rather in the memories evoked or implied possibility of greater intimacy. The power lies in the assumed message of the touch which says, in effect, "I am willing to be closer to you." "See, I will not drive you away or reject you if you come near." "You can be more honestly and openly in my presence with your desire to touch (instead of having to pretend you don't care to)."

Touch power, like look power, is rooted in body power as noted above. Its analysis includes both the genetic urges of males to have sex, of which looking and touching are the preliminary steps, and the primal personal experiences with the god-like mother's body as a mediator of her "good graces"--that is, her acceptance, approval, and love. Boys (all children) easily connect and identify mother's love with the presence and softness of her body. When she approves, she often touches; when she disapproves or rejects, touching is curtailed or not permitted. She punishes by withholding her omnipotent presence--her softness and touch.

Given the god-like nature of mother's love, mediated most clearly through her touching, the hand of mother (her touch) becomes, as it were, the hand of God to a boy. She, in effect, blesses him with her magical touch, and places a curse by withholding it. This wondrous power which is easily seen in a mother's ability to "kiss bobos" and make the pain go away, is less easily seen but often still assumed in later females who, in a grown boy's deeper mind, have the same magical touch powers as did the first great goddess. That is, grown boys easily project the memory of mother's primal powers of blessing or cursing through the giving or withholding of touch, on to other females who seem to share her characteristics. Usually being female is all it takes to evoke the projection of a male's memories of mother's power on to any woman in later life.

Your touch, an old song says, means too much to me... We men may recognize on some conscious level that you are not my mother and certainly that you hold no magical powers. Still, we commonly live-as-though, no matter what we think, certain of you selected women, especially those deemed as pretty or reminiscent of our mothers, can actually bless us with your touch. Or curse us by withholding it.

The powers inherent in the sexual implications of a woman's touch, though great, are often surpassed by those of the imagined blessing which it may hold. Genetically speaking, men need sex; but spiritually speaking, men often need salvation ("the blessing") even more than we need to spread our sperm. It is this second need, commonly projected on to women who may have no personal sense at all of the godliness we grant them, which so often gives a woman's touch its exaggerated and unrealistic powers. We do often want to touch you, and especially to be touched by you, as steps on the way toward to the bedroom; more often, though, we seek the blessings of your touch on the path to heaven. Our powerful drive for sex is often minor in comparison to our wish that you might save us.

That this second magical sense of your touch is completely unrealistic exaggerates rather than diminishes its power. That it exists in our imaginations only, projected on to you, does not take away from its effectiveness; instead, imagination magnifies. Precisely because it can never be erased by any real outside data--such as, finding that we are still frogs even after a Princess's kiss, or that sex doesn't save, or that your touch turns out to be only a heavy hand rather than a magical blessing because the magic is in our minds only, not vulnerable to reality, it becomes even more awesome.

Imagination, it turns out, is more powerful than reality; this power, then, being in the male mind rather than in the woman's hand, ends up the greater, precisely because it is unrealistic. If your touch doesn't work, we can try again and again; maybe next time! Or we can try some other woman's touch; perhaps you were the wrong Magical Princess. With our dream alive and well, we can easily keep woman's touch as a source of power, reality notwithstanding.

Turning now to woman's side of the touch fence: we all begin of course with female mothers and hence similar experiences with Woman-as-God. In the beginning, except for genetic differences initiated by Y chromosomes, girls experience woman's touch with the same power as do boys. Soon, however, as noted above under Body Power, social experiences of girls and boys diverge as the powers of the hormones manufactured by sex genes become apparent. In combination, these facts make a girl's experience with a boy's touch quite opposite from a boy's similar experience with a girl's touch.

This difference can reasonably be summarized as totally opposite. A boy's experience with female touch is likely to be all positive, while a girl's experience with male touch is often the opposite--completely negative. The little girls in Todd's nursery school are not likely to have gone home telling their mothers, "I like sleeping in the kitchen with the boys." "Todd tried to touch me," is a more predictable message, indicative of early differences in the ways boys and girls perceive touch contact with the opposite gender.

A boy's excitement in touching a girl is commonly paralleled by a girl's repulsion, distaste, or even threat in a comparable touch. Instead of "trying to," she will more likely "try not to," and also to "keep him from trying to." What begins in nursery school is commonly amplified with social education. Older boys' "fun" will be more like "groping" to older girls, who will soon, even before puberty, face the challenges of warding off the "advances" of older men also. Because male touch is so commonly connected with sexual implications if not direct sexual contact, innocent (meaning non-sexual) touch with any male is relatively rare for most girls.

The summary result of social training and experience, whatever its explanation, is that female touch--both touching and especially being-touched-by, is nearly always positive to males, whereas male touch is commonly experienced in an opposite way, namely, negative by females. In general, men want to touch women and to be touched by them, while women shy away from male touch and tend to avoid any initiative in touching males. Women, of course, also like physical contact when security and safety (nothing sexual) are the message. "Loving touches"meaning "affection," "tenderness," or "caring" are certainly favorable to many women. Even "bear hugs" may be positive, as long as they are clearly non-sexual.

The difficulty, though, is that few men make these distinctions. We rarely draw lines between affection and sexuality which women seem inevitably to make. The bottom line, in regard to power, is that positive touch power is almost exclusively a female possession. Literally speaking, we males too can easily "make things happen"which is what power is all about--through our touching; unfortunately for us, our powers are usually negative. With them, we are more likely to get what we don't want, namely, driving you away, than what we do want. You, in turn, may often manipulate us easily with the simple giving and withholding of your casual touches, especially with their magical powers to bless which we so freely grant to them.

Here, with touch, as with looks and body, the balance of power easily falls on the side of woman.

SOCIAL POWER

In the jungle, we Tarzans--with our bigger muscles, love for challenges, crude powers, and disdain for comfort, not to mention clean underwear--often hold the advantage. But once out of the jungle and into society, the advantage shifts to you Janes. You intuitively, or however, know things about social life together⁽¹⁷⁾being civilized, getting along with people, matching colors, setting tables, "fixing up" the house, tending to babies, carrying on conversations, making up beds, dressing in style, caring for one another, settling arguments, accepting differences, pouring oil on troubled waters, etc., about which we ex-Tarzans, too soon out of the jungle, are grossly ignorant.

We males are quite well endowed for fighting enemies, national or corporate, even for "bringing home the bacon"; but once at home--that's another story completely. Then we are commonly at your mercy. Peace, it turns out, plus most of the other finer matters of civilized lifelike grace, beauty, tenderness, style, and class, seem strangely foreign to our basic natures.

We can make wars; but we look to you females for peace-making. Where crudeness is called for, we are equipped; but when refinement becomes the order of the day, we find ourselves woefully lacking. "Does blue go with green?" " Which side of the plate gets the fork?" "How do you chit chat with people you don't like?" " How do you know which towels match? I thought they were only for drying off." Et cetera. Et cetera.

Certain aspects of society--politics, law, and business, for example, being much like the jungle, seem to come naturally for men; but once into the intricacies of social life, where manners, unwritten codes, politeness, and cooperation are called for, we men are usually like fish out of water.⁽¹⁸⁾

The values of the jungle--survival of the fittest, fierce competition where "big fish eat the little fish," raw animal sex, as examples--though partially necessary in politics, law, and business, are largely superseded by the daily demands of society. Here the values which are more genetically native to women--cooperation rather than competition, sharing rather than selfishness, conversing rather than arguing, smoothing-things-out rather than stirring-things-up, getting-along-together rather than winner-take-all, commitment rather than freedom--prevail. And certainly, crude sex or anything related--such as pornography, "dirty" jokes, "bad" language, "fooling around"cannot be socially acceptable.

In summary, most social values which are essential or desirable for smooth-working societies are those best related to female genetics. Male genes, at their finest, work best in the jungle--that is, outside the boundaries of functional social rules. What this means, in regard to power, is that since most of our time is spent in social circumstances, where female-type values are more desirable, females are at a distinct advantage. "Doing what comes naturally" for you is also functional for society; but when we "are natural" we are more likely to be disruptive or "anti-social." For being yourselves, as females, you will be socially rewarded; for being ourselves, we are apt to end up in jail at worst, or be rejected by you at best.

Because women are naturally inclined to be civil and social, and know more about how to, and because social values most often prevail over jungle values, females hold a power edge in every-day issues of civilization. "You aren't going out looking like that are you?,"--and knowing what the statement means, for example, can be a great source of female power.

Tarzans may be threatening in the jungle, but whenever we move into civilization--where we all live now, Janes hold the distinct advantage in social powers.

DECEPTION POWER

A pig reportedly said to a hen concerning our traditional Ham And Egg breakfasts: For you it's all in a day's work; but for me it's a real sacrifice.

The "sex act" is only woman's option; man can't fake it. A huge power advantage hangs on this simple biological difference. The most powerful call of male genes can be glibly answered with a phoney female reply. Woman can, if she chooses, give what man's biology craves most with only the slightest effort. A woman always can do, with minimal expenditure of energy, what man most wants done; man, regrettably, can never do with such minimum effort what every woman always wants done. Furthermore, she can do what he most wants done, faking it.

Almost any woman can, potentially, make almost any man instantaneously happy, while no man can ever, so quickly and easily, make any woman happy; her biological needs are far too complex for such simple solutions. It is as though every woman were born with a magic wand (perhaps a genie in a bottle would be a better metaphor) for easily providing what every man wants most, while no man is ever in possession of any such magical potion for woman.

Only the offering of a man's real strength, wealth, and love, symbolically laid at the altar of a woman's future life with the "I do" pledge, can compare in power to the offering of almost any woman's "sex act."

To understand this vast difference in potential powers, so long accepted as to be easily ignored and taken for granted today, we need to return to our beginnings--to Mr. Sperm and Ms. Ovum. At first, recall, what we require of each other is vastly different. Mr. Sperm, for fulfilling his entire role in the Drama of Conception, need only deposit his 23 chromosomes in the heart of Ms. Ovum's body. For her, however, this is but the beginning; she does require his chromosomes, but these are relatively easy to get. Mostly she needs a powerful male with many resources, one committed to supply what their newly conceived life will demand for years to come. In other words, his simple need for sex is paralleled by her complex need for commitment.

Biologically speaking, Mr. Sperm can be satisfied by Ms. Ovum's simple act of showing up and receiving him into herself. Ms. Ovum, however, for the completion of her role, needs much, much more. Sex may do it for him, but security is necessary for her to finish the task they begin together. Good sperm (genes) are of course desirable, but a good man is far more essential (See Chapter V for amplification).

But first, more about deception itself: De-ception means fooling-the-conceptions; both by definition and effect deception is a means of wielding power, of making things happen, of achieving results. When a male peacock "fools" a peahen with his flamboyant tail, or a female quail fools a nest-wrecker with her "broken" wing, or a chameleon "fools" everyone by changing his colors to fit with his surroundings, artful deception is at work. Motives are not the issue here; power is. And deception is one powerful device.

Throughout the animal kingdom, Homo sapiens included, for one reason or another males try to fool females, females try to fool males, and males even try to fool around. Men pretend, through "sweet nothings" to be what they are not; women pretend, through "sweet everythings" (perfumes, makeup, and underthings) to be what they are not. Motives may be pure, but none of us, certainly neither gender, is immune to the temptation to deceive the other.

BUT, and here's the relevant point: females are better than males at the same game, thereby wielding greater power in the long run. Not that females are "bad" or "worse" because they are best--remember, motives are not the issue. Contrary to popular social values which often condemn deception as inherently "bad" whoever does it, no such judgment is intended here. Deception, it seems, is written into the life-script as one of most effective means of survival. Living up to the Law of the Jungle--survival of the fittest, is universally attempted through deceiving natural enemies.

Female advantages at deception, giving them the power edge over men, are not as related to individual women themselves as to their gendered gifts of evolution. Perhaps the vastly different needs of one for the other are partially responsible for the huge evolutionary changes which have taken place in females during the last million years. As noted earlier, females inherit, ever since we Homo sapiens began parting company from our chimp relatives, three distinct changes unparalleled in their male cohorts--namely: continuous breasts (so she is always appealing to males), hidden ovulation (so we never know when an ovum is present), and continuous capability for sex (so she always can do it).⁽¹⁹⁾ In the service of her awesome responsibilities in child creation and rearing she needed all the advantages she might develop. Certainly these three were to prove useful in attracting, obtaining, and keeping the best of the males available.

Males inherit a slightly streamlined set of equipment for sperm production and expulsion (larger testes and penis), but nothing comparable, insofar as power is concerned, with the evolutionary gifts to females.

Furthermore, these inherited characteristics are "hard-wired"that is genetically directed, quite apart from any conscious thought on the part of a particular female. They, so to speak, "just happen." At puberty, breasts, which are inherently attractive to males, mysteriously appear, along with secret ovulation and the continuous possibility of having sex power devices denied to all our distant kin.

Emerging from these three inherited gifts and the older biological requirement of male orgasm, come the unparalleled female advantages in the arena of deception. The significance, as related to power, of just this last difference (the male necessity of orgasm in sex) would be difficult to overestimate. In combination the later Big Three plus the earlier Big O--these facts of biological life give females a grossly unfair, it seems to us males, advantage in faking, that is, in their natural capacity for deception in the arena which is crucially important to both of us.

The first element is the difference in the goals of our genetic eyes namely, man looking for a sexy woman and woman in search of a mature man. The point is: to act sexy is far simpler than to be mature. Inherently, woman has an simpler job in supplying what man needs than man has in supplying what woman needs for our shared goal.

Evolution has been less benevolent (except for the fun of orgasm) in making it easy for man to fake the security which woman so obviously needs for her role in reproduction. The elements of security--strength, protection, wealth (access to resources), and commitment, are all notably difficult to fake. Certainly men commonly try; we pretend to be strong, act protective, spend lavishly (at first), and promise faithfulness--all in an effort to offer what we know women want. Often, of course, we're also sincere. But conscious motives notwithstanding, the point here is that any one of these elements of security is hard to fake in the long run.

Without belittling the immense energies which females may expend in trying to appear effortlessly attractive, we may also recognize the far greater requirements of a male in appearing to be wealthy, responsible, and committed. For a woman to look sexy, though requiring effort, is considerably easier than for a man to appear mature. "Going to bed," for example, faking sex and even orgasm, with implied promises for the future, is fairly simple for a woman in comparison with a man's faking strength and wealth, not to mention faithfulness. All too soon, the bills must be paid and "temptations" to stray are genetically predictable. Sex-making for a woman, is regrettably for men, far simpler than security-making for a man. Any "dumb blond" can act sexy enough to fool most men; but it takes a "really smart" man to appear secure enough to fool any woman.

For example, dressing to look sexy is less demanding than making enough money to look wealthy; being "cute" is easier than taking charge of situations, paying the bills, and being responsible; and finally, acting coy (an attribute of female sexiness) is simpler than acting committed, especially when this latter trait, so desired by females, is counter to a male's genetic nature. It is easier, as best I can tell, to "act like a woman" than to "act like a man"given these differences in what each means. An immature male's cover is easier to see through, than is that of a phoney female.

Maturity (commitment and stability) are far more difficult for man to pretend. Men, of course, often try to fake commitment ("Sure I love you...") as a ruse for getting women to bed. Sometimes it even works. But woman's ease in faking sex, including orgasm, is far less demanding than man's ease in faking love. When we come to deceiving each other, woman wins hand's down.

Our contrasting biological requirements set the stage for this difference. Man, to "perform" his role in the sex "act," cannot act at all; he must literally be present. For ejaculation, he must "have" an orgasm; more literally, he must be orgasmic. Woman, in contrast, requiring no orgasm for effectively performing her role, need only bring her body and, to be crude, "spread her legs," which as is often the case, man does for her.

Orgasm, in sharp distinction, in an extremely complex physiological and psychological process requiring a delicate coordination of the sympathetic and para-sympathetic branches of the autonomic nervous system. Furthermore these systems are largely beyond any conscious control and are severely influenced by a host of psychological factors, such as fear, which are easily capable of short-circuiting the entire physiological event. ⁽²⁰⁾

In addition, before ejaculation of substance is possible, millions of such substances (sperm), must be manufactured, stored, shipped, and placed on hold for delivery in that one magic moment of explosion. And even prior to all these complicated operations, man, in our society, is largely responsible for establishing the social circumstances and physical conditions (wining, dining, and bedding), plus--which is often the most difficult of all, securing the tacit permission if not cooperation, of the female involved. Hopefully. Once to the bed, the event itself, prior to ejaculation, requires a considerable expenditure of energy for the male. Woman too may be actively involved; but for her, no great amount of energy is necessary. She can succeed and remain relatively passive, conserving her energy. Even the energy of orgasm is not required.

After such, for man, a grand event, he cannot repeat the happening without another physical production of sperm, plus the semen necessary to transport a second such hoard. Woman, conversely, having no necessity for sperm and semen production, and capable of participation with relatively little expenditure of B.T.U.'s of energy, can be immediately ready to repeat her "performance." This capacity to "do it again" at once--to, from a male's standpoint, be relatively omnipotent sexually in the presence of his extremely limited sexual abilities, gives woman another power advantage.⁽²¹⁾

In summary, orgasm is a terribly challenging, extremely personal, event with complicated physiological, psychological, social, and interpersonal requirements for the male. That we sometimes achieve such a success is an amazing testimony to the wondrous though devious course of evolution. Hurray for genes! Wisely, they have succeeded in encoding pleasure in the event. Else who among us would have the nerve to attempt to do our small part in continuing the Homo sapiens species? And to further the wonder, we most often seem, at least to women, to be constantly ready to pull off this amazing feat, effortlessly. What an illusion!

Comparing again: in this mutual encounter required for human conception, woman need only be present "in body." Even that can be "against her will." Man, in contrast, must be present "in body and spirit," plus "willing" the event. She can, in effect, "fake it"that is, act it out, while he must truly "be present." And the human requirements for being, in comparison with those for acting, are immensely greater.

As with the proverbial pig and hen, what for her is all in a day's work is truly a sacrifice for him. One which, of course, given the pleasure involved, we gladly make.

Aside from the actual event of impregnation, man's inability to even participate in a sexual act without being so fully present--erections can't be faked--places him at a distinct disadvantage when sex becomes a prospect in an encounter. Because, as noted above, no complex physical and psychological coordination is required of woman--she can both be afraid (even bored) and still have sex and fake an amazing orgasm--she can easily move toward a sexual event without the possibility of personal threat which every man must face every time he approaches a sexual encounter. She can easily tempt him, wielding the power inherent in appearing to have what he wants, knowing "full well" that she can produce through phoniness, with her body only--no spirit required. Not only are wealth and resources harder to fake, but sex itself, should a woman seem to desire it, is impossible for a man without the production of an erection, even without orgasm.

Recognizing this difference, woman can safely and easily hold sex over a man's head, not only by withholding what he wants, but she can be threatening even when he doesn't desire sex. Given the common identification of a man's sense-of-himself with his sexual potency, woman's powers become even more threatening when man is disinterested. Her fake-ability in the act itself, which he never has, is therefore a continual source of power--when he wants sex or when he doesn't.

An additional advantage accrues to woman in the fact that sexual deceptions can be made with less conscious honesty than can security deceptions. It is easier for a woman to fake sex unconsciously--that is, without "thinking," without acknowledging to herself that she is doing so, than it is for a man to fake security without self-awareness. Sex, being a "natural act" can be "done" in the dark of the night as well as the mind. Making up "lines," not to mention making money and giving diamonds, however, being less "natural," require more conscious thought on a male's part.

Wifely prostitution, for instance, is seldom so-named even if more widely practiced than any such legal vice. Easily it is labeled, in all sincerity, as "being good to the man I love," or, "just trying to keep him happy," or, "giving (itself a virtuous act) a man what he wants," or, "just doing my duty (a responsible thing to do)." Virtuous motives easily cloak what remains, so often, an extremely effective power ploy.

Even when we're both being deceptive, woman's mode is easier to effect without consciousness; man's type requires more "thinking about." This difference in relative awareness gives woman an additional advantage. Less conscious of her power-packed deceptions, she can do them "naturally," and usually, as best I can tell, without having to deal with guilt at the same time. Men may become immune to guilt, at cost to themselves, but even "calculated lines" and "designed lies" are more difficult to effect than "just giving in." "Making love," which man wants, is easier to deceive, than the "love" which woman wants, which is harder to fake. So, here, as elsewhere, the power balance goes to woman.

In summary, both with sex itself and the wider aspects of "being a woman" and "being a man," woman holds the power edge. It is easier, both in bed and out, or so it seems to us men--given the differences in what is required for each gender, to "act like a woman"appear to be tender, caring, and sexy, than it is to "act like a man"appear wealthy, responsible, and committed. A woman can, for example, pretend to be sexy, if she chooses, going through the motions for years. A man, of course, can also pretend to have vast resources and be faithfully committed; his act, however, is more likely to be uncovered, once the honeymoon is over and the bills start coming in.

When it comes to deception about that which matters most to each gender, the power advantage, it seems to me, definitely lies in woman's camp. To mix my metaphors: given woman's Big Three gifts of evolution and man's Big Orgasm requirement, the Deception Deck is stacked on woman's side of the table. Woman's easier options in faking both sex and "being a woman" become one more source of power advantage between the genders. We men commonly try to "act big" at first; like peacocks we strut in our efforts to appeal to females. But when production times come, woman's greater ability to pretend is another source of power over us peacocks.

LAW POWER

Laws about gender issues are primarily weighted on woman's side, placing the balance of these outside powers at her disposal. Most female values which are genetically inclined are, with good reason, correspondingly valued by society--that is, what is good for woman is good for society, most of the time. Wisely then, societies legislate structures which protect society and also women who share social values. Broadly speaking these include: peace, individual life, private property, caring for one another (especially the less fortunate), acting unselfishly, protecting family structures (one of the bases of society) and especially women who are the primary family keepers.

Specifically, legal structures are fierce on activities which threaten "family" (women and children), such as: violence, rape, molestation, adultery, pornography, divorce, and non-support of children. Conversely, genetic male values receive little support from the law. Most of what males are genetically inclined to do is either illegal or carefully circumscribed by the law--for example, each of the above.

Past civil laws, social rules of polite society (see Social Power) are also female dominated. What females do naturally is encoded in the etiquette of society; what males do naturally is largely ruled out by "polite society." For example, social rules call for being cooperative rather than competitive, smooth rather than rough, attractive rather than sexual, "nice" rather than "nasty," putting others first, self last.

"Looking good," for instance, one of the most ingrained of female urges, is both socially acceptable and honored everywhere. "Taking a good look," the male correlate, is at best "impolite," at worst, illegal. Fashion models make good money; peeping toms get put in jail. Females are socially supported in going to almost any length to look, dress, smell, walk, talk, and move seductively; males with any parallel diligence are "ogling," "crude," "offensive," and certainly "impolite."

Shopping malls abound for female indulgence in this most natural of woman's urges. No such socially acceptable structure exists for a comparable male urge. Only pornography comes close, and it, of course, is socially, if not legally, condemned. A woman "doing her thing" is "nice"; a comparable man is "nasty."

Conversation, which represents the largest portion of time spent together between the genders, is also dominated by female values. "Polite" conversation is, by definition, woman talk. Having a "nice conversation" means "politely" conversing--the way only women can do naturally; that is, speaking in a soft tone of voice, certainly "never raising your voice," "politely" listening to the other, never interrupting, hiding any disagreement, avoiding divisive subjects, and deferring to the other should unavoidable conflict arise.

Acceptable language is also screened by female values. Only "nice" words--those which are smooth and not "offensive" are allowed. No "crude talk (typically male language)" is permitted. Above all, nothing remotely related to sex "should" ever enter the conversation. "Dirty" jokes are of course off limits in "polite" talk. Disagreement is bad enough; but sex is anathema. As any honest male knows, "good conversation" with a woman is always by her rules and with words acceptable to her; natural maleness is thereby ruled out.

With touching, the social disparity is even greater. Almost any woman--should she so choose, can touch almost any man almost anywhere almost any time with complete social acceptance and protection. After all, she is only "caring" or "showing her tenderness and concern." Conversely, if any man touches a girl or woman almost anywhere almost any time, he is immediately "suspect" if not soon charged, socially if not civilly. Who does he think he is, "taking such liberties"? Even the slightest hint of sexuality--which, of course, is at the heart of maleness, invites social rejection. The only way male touch achieves any acceptance in society, even with a man's loved ones, is when it is carefully cloaked as woman's way of touching--that is, as "caring" rather than in any way "sexy." With age, a touching female becomes an "affectionate elderly lady" while a touching male is, of course, a "dirty old man."

In regard to power, these and other civil and social legislations which support female values and in large measure serve to contain if not condemn many male values give women the advantage in two major ways: first, access to legal structures for protection and support. For much of what man naturally tends to do, woman can "call the police" to protect her. Conversely, man has no such legal protection from woman's wiles and ways. Imagine a policeman's response to man's call that a woman had "tried to fondle me." Of course no male would make such a call to begin with; but if he did, laughter (and envy?) would be the predictable response of legal authorities. There is no 911 number for socially acceptable female "abuses."

I pick an obviously ridiculous example because this significant legal difference is so commonly accepted as to be largely unexamined. More seriously, consider the difference between a mother emasculating a son and a father sexualizing a daughter--that is, a woman bringing a boy into the female world (emotionally "castrating" him) and a man bringing a girl into the male world (sexually "affirming" her). The first, of course, is completely legal, socially acceptable, and commonly approved. The second, though parallel across gender lines, is not only illegal but also unthinkable, certainly in polite society.

The second part of the legal imbalance--laws against natural male behavior, does not involve women directly, but exists between men and the law itself. Apart from women, the social "message" of legal structures, which leave women out but make many male attributes illegal, is a covert judgment of masculinity itself. Men easily fall for these implied judgments. Logically, if something is illegal it must also be wrong. For example: with good social reason we legalize against the powerful male urge to touch females. Such laws against fondling, molestation, and abuse, not to mention rape, easily imply a male's evilness for his natural genetic urges.

A logical or sensitive man, even before entering the presence of a woman who might call the laws into action, may be personally "done in" by the implications of the legal structure itself. "If the law says it's wrong and I want to do it, then something must be wrong with me." "If the law approves what women want to do, then it must be right." Such logical thinking can easily become a powerful force not only in controlling behavior, but also in negating masculinity before a man ever reaches a woman's presence. Rare is the male who has not been partially squelched in his own masculinity by the power of these legal "messages."

In addition to possible legal consequences, the weight of our pragmatic civil structures may also become a powerful force against masculinity itself. When the additional social rules of "politeness" are added to the weight of legal structures, for example, when a man can be made to feel guilty for "wanting to look" or to "cop a feel," let alone doing either openly, then the social "powers that be" are likely to become an oppressive force against becoming himself--at least the masculine aspects of his humanity. When shopping for clothes--to be more attractive, is socially sanctioned, but "shopping for a look" at attractive clothes-wearers (or removers)to be attracted to, is socially rejected, the scene is set for an imbalance in powers.

To summarize: "Doing what comes naturally" for a woman is rarely illegal or even impolite; but with man the case is opposite. Legal structures exist to protect woman from man and man from himself. Social rules likewise are designed to make society flow smoothly, which in large measure involves keeping women's values operative and keeping male values "under wraps." When a woman "does what she wants to" she rarely needs to fear the law; when a man does, he often should. When a woman "is being herself" the social world is apt to smile and approve; when a man "is being himself" he is well advised to go to the woods, the hunting camp, or to war--certainly not to a social situation where girls and women are present.

These legal and social differences place law power, both civil or social, strongly on the side of females and regularly a threat to men "being themselves."

IS VERSUS HAS POWER

Man needs woman
more for what-she-is
than for what-she-has

Woman needs man
more for what-he-has
than for what-he-is

As noted earlier (see chapter on NEEDING EACH OTHER), we need each other for different reasons. In our shared Dramas of Conception and Reproduction, our differing roles require that each gender bring different gifts to the common agenda. In a broad sense these may be distinguished existentially--that is, between is and has, existence and possessions. Primarily, woman brings what she is; man brings what he has. Woman, as it were, brings herself; man brings his possessions. The difference begins at conception and continues through child rearing and beyond.

Initially Mr. Sperm brings his load of 23 chromosomes, packed compactly into the penetrating head of the swimmer. Ms. Ovum also brings 23 chromosomes tucked neatly away in the nucleus of her vast cell. Conception essentially involves Mr. Sperm depositing what he has, his load of 23 chromosomes in the body of what Ms. Ovum is, for uniting with her 23. Thereafter the 46 will be first nourished by her large cell body, then by nutrients from the body of her bearer.

After conception, the Sperm-bearer's role continues in the realm of possessions--what he has--rather than what he is. Although a father's presence, his existential self, is desirable (after he is "civilized") during child rearing, the primary male contribution to the continuing process involves his possessions. Father's, typically and most necessarily, are the "providers" for the family. They are needed to "bring home the bacon," that is, to provide resources required for family sustenance while mother's bring themselves to the process.

These obvious provisions of materials--first of chromosomes, then of supplies for the family are prototypes of male/female relationships in general. Children aside, man most needs and wants from woman what she isher embodied self, while woman, conversely, has far less need and desire for what man is and much more for what he may, hopefully, havenamely, possessions to enhance her own well-being and which have to do with what he has.

Beyond any single Drama of Conception, man commonly wants woman for sexual reasons, for pussy. Pussy, to man, means who-woman-is. Although every woman knows she is much more than her sexuality alone and many women completely separate their personal sense-of-themselves from their bodies, the fact remains that body is always more personal than money or any other impersonal possession. A man may view his possessed wealth as an extension of himself; it is the fruit of his labors. He may even identify himself with his work, and honestly believe that his money--the symbol of his work, is his love. Even so, what he has that is needed and wanted by woman, is not finally who-he-is.

Conversely, at least in man's eye, a woman's love, personified in her pussy, is who-she-is. When a man wants what a woman calls "sex," he wants who he commonly believes she is. In her mind, she may simply be doing an act which she perceives impersonally. Rarely, though, is this true for men. Women may "just have sex"; men, more often are truly "making love." Physiological differences (previously noted) may partially be the basis for this different perspective. Whatever its source, men are likely to be both personally present in their love making, and perceive woman, falsely or not, to be also. We men lie when we excuse our unfaithfulness with, "It didn't mean a thing." Perhaps it didn't mean anything to her; but rarely is that true for us. For men, sex is more often a personal experience; we want to believe it is also for women.

The point here is how sex relates to power. Pussy, at least to man, is more personal than possessions. A man is flattered of course when a woman admires his car or wealth, and wants him "for what he has." Better for his possessions than not at all. But the power which women wield by what they are (as perceived by man) is always greater in the long run than that which men may exercise by what they have.

Is power is greater than has power. The balance again swings in woman's favor because in the realm of wants-from-the-other, man comes closer to wanting what woman is, and woman, to what man has.

PLEASE POWER

Both men and women are interested in pleasing each other as a means of establishing and maintaining bonds relevant to our differing roles in the Dramas of Conception and Reproduction. Within the single realm of pleasing, however, there are differing types, with differing degrees of manipulative power inherent in each. Here, as in other dimensions in which similar activities are involved, the power balance is tipped in woman's favor.

The distinction is between endeavors to-be-pleasing and to-please. Women want to-be-pleasing, as a spin-off from the inclination to attract; men, in the same ball park but with a different game, want to-please females as a strategy for encouraging their own selection. Ovum-bearers, like the ova they bear, achieve their goals through attracting Sperm-bearers while passively waiting (or appearing to do so). In this process they strive to-be-pleasing to those whom they wish to attract. Sperm-bearers, contrastingly, in the pursuit of females, best achieve their goal of being selected by actively trying to-please the waiting ovum and her bearer.

Pleasing, as a power move, they both share; but how each goes about the endeavor is distinctly different, and the power of the female mode, given their final right-of-choice, is greater than the power of the male way. The power inherent in to-be-pleasing is greater than that in to-please. In consort, when women are using their mode, and men theirs, there is no conflict. Then, striving to-be-pleasing and trying to-please dove-tail in a cooperative dance which benefits the endeavors of both. Her effort to-be-pleasing is rewarded and enhanced by his labor to-please; and vice versa.

But at points of conflict, when the dance is replaced by a battle, the male mode proves to be the less potent of the two.

How can these similar though different endeavors be distinguished and understood? First, in terms of activity: as noted, woman's mode is more passive than active in its overall appearance. Even though more private activity may be given to efforts to-be-pleasing--for example, countless hours to selection of clothing and of make-up--in practice this form of pleasing is finally more pas