In those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be
regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta;
the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has
carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women,
who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury.


Immanuel Kant once said that the whole of the universe was made up of the opposite forces of repulsion and attraction. To this we can add Machiavelli's statement that "all the actions of men resemble those of nature," in support of which there is to be found abundant empirical evidence and the logic that higher entities must contain the properties of their constituent parts. A metaphysical analysis of sexual differentiation will cause us to see the same basic dichotomy of repulsion and attraction in male independence and female unity. An entity exhibiting repulsive force pushes itself away from everything else, leaving itself isolated - or independent. Something utilizing the attractive force seeks to draw everything else to it - hence the result of unity. Various mixtures of these forces make up all things, more complex things requiring a more integrated mix of the two forces.

Looking at that basic composite structure of matter - the atom, we cannot help but notice its similarity to the family or "nuclear family" as it is called. The nucleus of the atom contains the "female" protons that passively aggregate together along with the "children" (the neutrons,) which add an element of stability to the atom as children add stability to the family. The "male" electrons actively form a "social" hierarchy as they fill orbitals of different size and shape that surround the nucleus. Also, due to their peripheral location and lesser attachment to the nucleus, they are "free" to become involved in a greater variety of interactions related to the formation of more complex structures (e.g. molecules.) Though electrons have the active roles, it is the protons and neutrons that are the focal point of the atom, it is "they" that the electrons are forced to revolve around. A person unfamiliar with the invisible attractive forces of the protons could easily misinterpret the inner workings of the atom. Here is the way a feminist might have explained things; "Those chauvinistic electrons circle around all day while keeping the protons confined to the nucleus along with the neutrons. They fill up all the orbitals while denying the same opportunities to protons. And whenever they feel like it, they abandon their nucleus and go flying off after some other protons." Fortunately for us, feminists did not establish the laws of physics and chemistry, if only we could say the same about today's social legislation.

If we look at the activity of electrons we can draw certain inferences to our own society. First, we notice that the laws of chemistry deal mainly with the activity of electrons because they exude the most actively complex motion, and laws by their nature deal with the interaction of bodies and forces along ordered lines. Related to this, we see that active things, because of their discernible physical motion and independence, can be treated individually. Things that cluster in groups, whose forces show little visible motion, are harder to account for and therefore must be dealt with in a different fashion. However, as far as power goes, we know that electrons and protons have opposite but equal charges, therefore, they are equally "responsible" for what they produce as a collective unit. The situation of male and female are not strictly analogous to the electron and proton, but as suggested, there is great similarity. Males are more active, and act more independently, and therefore laws in general address themselves more to the conduct of men than that of women.

Let us examine some of the criteria for making a criminal case against someone. One important element is that there exists an "intent" to commit a particular crime; another element is that the perpetrator of the crime is its direct or "proximate cause." If we look at the differences in methods of influence used by men and women, we find men tend to act much more directly, while women rely on indirect means, particularly through their personal influence on men (the way a proton, while appearing passive, causes the electron to circle around the nucleus by its pull.) To give an example, say a man has a girlfriend whom he loves very much, but who is difficult to please. She lets him know that she is dissatisfied with the amount of material benefits she gets from their relationship. She tells him not-so-subtly that if he doesn't start doing better she is going to find someone else who will. The man works hard already, but only takes in a modest salary, he hasn't the skills or education for a better job, and there isn't time to learn. He needs money fast, and legitimate opportunities just are not available. In his desperation he decides to steal, and after a time he gets caught. His girlfriend knew he was stealing, but as long as she got what she wanted she didn't let on that she knew. She was the beneficiary of his actions, she knew what he was doing, and she knew that she was the underlying cause. Yet, the man is punished while the woman is not charged with the slightest wrongdoing. This is because she did not act directly as the "proximate cause" or with the "specific intent" of committing a crime. She "just" pushed the man beyond the opportunities allowed to him by law. Say she knew she would drive him to steal - so what?, how could you ever prove it, and if you could, what could you charge her with? Even after he started to steal, how could you prove she knew, seeing how well she remained silent about it. And again, even if were shown that she knew, what crime could she be found guilty of? She did not take part in the planning or the execution of the crime, and assuming that her boyfriend sold what he had stolen before he got home, there would be no stolen goods to connect with her. As you can see, our laws focus on the person most directly connected with the crime, and as we know, that means men. We should note that this same argument is also applied collectively; American companies, mostly run by men, frequently engage in unethical business practices, but most of the wealth they produce ends up in the hands of women. Wars and economic exploitation of other countries takes place to a large extent to supply the material wants - or decadence, of the women in this country.1

Our laws would seem to be highly unjust to men if there were not alternative methods of social regulation that address themselves to the conduct of women. Because the effects of acts of individual women are hard to account for, general laws that circumscribe the behavior of women are often used, such as those that, to varying degrees, restrict women to the home. In conjunction with this we see the husband established as head of the household and giving law to his wife the way the government regulates his behavior. The Romans, in building their great civilization, went so far as to give the husband power of life and death over his wife. While the ancient Greeks employed public magistrates to regulate the behavior of women, in the U.S. today, no such regulatory methods exist and no politician would dare even suggest them, rather, the politicians try to surpass each other on who can grant the most licentiousness to women and plunder the most wealth from men on their behalf. Another regulatory method is for the community at large, and particularly its women, to informally regulate the conduct of other women in ad hoc fashion, for example, driving a prostitute out of the community. If alternate means of regulating women's conduct were not practically possible, men could then be compensated for the greater regulation of their behavior by being granted greater rights. This appears to be part of the legal and moral reasoning of the past, but today it is women who have more rights than men while enjoying even more legal immunity than in the past.

One can see now the gross inequity of our legal system; in comparison to men, women are allowed to do almost anything they like, while men are constantly intimidated by lawsuits and criminal actions, increasingly of a fabricated nature. It is not surprising then that men are sometimes driven to use private violence against women in retaliation for the institutional injustices and state violence to which they are subjected.

We have systems such as affirmative action and quotas that are designed for rectifying discriminatory practices. Such systems should see to it that legal punishments are given out in accordance with population demographics. Since 51% of the population is female, we would than expect a similar percentage of women to make up our prison populations, which now stands at the obscenely low figure of 6%. Failing this, it would not be unjust for the men of this country to feel compelled to seek "illegal" means to accomplish equity.


1 'There is much talk to-day of sex liberty and the crimes attributable to it. And there are many crimes attributable to it: murder, theft, and what not. But are the thousands of men from all walks of life in jail because of sex? What nonsense! A very small percentage of the total crimes of to-day spring directly from sex offenses: rape and sodomy. On the other hand, it is only fair to say that many property crimes are leveraged by sex. Thus, Convict Mark Snell (quite typical in this respect, I think) said to his captors and subsequent legal mentors; 'I was living in a furnished room with a girl, and after the robbery I gave her the money, and three days later she married another fellow and squealed on me.'
   In another case, a seventeen-year-old boy tried to swing a hold-up to buy clothes for his sweetheart, even younger than he, her mother told him he needn't come around unless he could bring her dresses. But this, and the case above sited, are, as anyone can see, motivated by economic injustice rather than by downright evil in the heart.....

   But who bothers to sort out the conflicting economic, social and other motives here, and to mitigate accordingly? Or to study the economics of the social arrangement by which they are so sharply checked? Or cares whether such young fellows become embittered? Show me the American who would even recall such emotional tragedies, let alone brood over them with any feeling of understanding!.....

.. sex and economics walk hand in hand .. I fear that in no economic scheme can sex be altogether eliminated as a cause of crime. It is too wholly the very core of life."

Dreiser, Theodore. Tragic America, Horace Liveright, Inc., New York, 1931, p. 301-3.

  "Men may accumulate silver and gold or other beautiful things, but if they see a woman with a pretty face or a good figure, they will leave it all to gape and stare, and they will desire her more than their wealth. A man will leave his own father, who brought him up, and leave his own country to get married. He will forget his father, his mother, and his country to spend the rest of his life with his wife. So you must recognize that women are your masters. Don't you work and sweat and then take all that you have earned and give it to your wives? A man will take his sword and go out and attack, rob and steal, and sail the seas and rivers. He may have to face lions or travel in the dark, but when he has robbed, stolen, and plundered, he will bring the loot home to the woman he loves.
   A man loves his wife more than his parents. Some men are driven out of their minds on account of a woman, and others become slaves for the sake of a woman. Others have been put to death, have ruined their lives, or have committed crimes because of a woman. So now do you believe me?"

Holy Bible, Today's English Version, American Bible Society, New York, 1 Esdras 4: 18-28 (verse numbering omitted in text above.)

(The work above is frequently categorized as being part of the "Apocrypha" of the Bible, however, it was part of the Bible proper in the original King James version.)

"Knowest thou not that puissant princes and potent Kings before women ever humbly bend and on them for delight depend! Verily, they may say; --We rule over
necks and rob hearts.  These women ! how many a rich man have they not paupered, how many a powerful man have they not prostrated and how many a superior man have they not enslaved ! Indeed, they seduce the sage and send the saint to shame and bring the wealthy to want and plunge the fortune favoured into penury. Yet for all this, the wise but redouble in affection of them and honour; nor do they count this oppression or dishonour. How many a man for them hath offended his maker and called down on himself the wrath of his father and mother !  And all this because of the conquest of their love over hearts.   Knowest thou not, O
wretched one, that for them are built pavilions, and slave-girls are for sale; that for them tear-floods rail and for them are collected jewels of price and ambergris and musk odoriferous; and armies are arrayed and pleasaunces made and wealth heaped up and smitten off is many a head ? And indeed he spoke sooth in the words,
' Whoso saith the world meaneth woman.' "

The Man's Dispute with the Learned Woman Concerning the Relative Excellence of Male and Female  (Arabian Nights - Burton trans.)

( While the "smart women" and feminists of our time say that it is men who turn women into "sex objects" in order to degrade them, the "learned woman" and feminist speaking above argues that the "perfect pleasure is in women" and then brags about what they can do with this power to please.)

Written by Thomas Pollock aka Spartacus, Editor of The Men's Tribune                                                                                  First Posted: 1998       Last Update: 10 Mar 00