Provoked Judgment: The Pareto Principle of Manliness and Femininity

Sexual dimorphism in humans is real. There are sex differences and they cannot be overcome except that they are eliminated altogether; the result of which is less than human. But it is not as pronounced as in other mammals. One poignant example is that no other male mammal spends as much time caring for offspring as human males. Maladjusted and bitter feminists gripe about leaving women behind to care for the children, but men are the most tenderhearted males in the kingdom. A man is more womanly than a lion is lioness-ly. He’s also more godly; since women are also made in His image. The inverse is also true.

The division of male authority and female desire is not absolute. Men have desire too, and women also have authority. For the sake of ease of memory, think of it as another example of the Pareto Principle: 80% of a man’s decision-making is in reference to his authority, and 20% is influenced by his desires. The reciprocal is true for women: 80% of choices follow desire and considerations of authority make up 20% of their M.O.

I’m far from the first to recognize this: Taoism’s yin-yang concept is apt. The difference between my view and the Taoist view is, I think, that the yin-yang is egalitarian, and my view is patriarchal. The circularity of the yin-yang symbol is fundamentally egalitarian; each side chasing the other and going nowhere. I submit that there is an order: Authority–judgment–should rule desire even as desire provokes judgment, and that we should desire to go up, towards God and His authority.

12 thoughts on “Provoked Judgment: The Pareto Principle of Manliness and Femininity

  1. Yin/Yang are different things where both are needed in proper proportion for the context. You need both rationality AND empathy, and it works best when rationality is the guide (masculine), but noting feelings and passions really do matter. Otherwise all men would be like the original Mr. Spock or some other Vulcan, and all women would just be practically non-sentient. The empathy component avoids the cold-hearted side of reason. The reason component avoids the “fix the hurt feelings, not the underlying problem” of empathy. We need both head and heart.

    It is not an equality, it is pliers and a screwdriver. You would not want God to be perfectly just with no mercy, but mercy is only possible after justice has declared what ought to be. And even love – agape – comes from the will, not the reason, nor the passions. The passions cling to any object, and reason does a calculation.

    If perfectly cold, logical men raised children they would be sociopaths, without empathy. But as Lewis noted in Abolition of Man (complaining about the two books that killed virtue), the passions are what must be ordered in children so that when reason comes along later it finds the habits are correct. Women can instruct children how it causes pain to others to lie, cheat, steal, or physically harm. Men can then elaborlate later on life, liberty, and property, and all the rational minutiae.

    We see the evil when only women raise children without even the shadow of a Father, but we forget BOTH parents are necessary. That is the Yin-Yang. Different functions at different times, but both needed.

  2. I often remind the wife and daughters, a man knows ten times more about submission than a woman does, because we live in and understand hierarchies as a matter of course. It seems sometimes as though all women do is to complain about not being at the top.

    “A man is more womanly”–that sounds like an Eric Ludy sermon that I shredded for a young apprentice lately. I might put it that tenderness is truly a masculine quality, and without strength, gentleness is merely weakness. Weakness doesn’t accomplish; to accomplish without strength is to lack control.

    Could you clarify the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph? I might have understood it had you written that a man is more godly since a woman is made in his (man’s) image, but the capital His throws me.

  3. @Caspar

    Could you clarify the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph?

    Men and women are both made in the image of God. Women are made in the image of God, and men. Men are not made in the image of women, but they are made actually within women.

  4. @tz

    It is not an equality, it is pliers and a screwdriver.

    No. In the case of tools some situations call for pliers alone, some for a screwdriver alone. It is not so with authority and desire.

    Bad analogies are much worse than no analogies.

  5. The Daoist conception of the masculine and the feminine, I think, is not at all egalitarian: it only recognizes the worth of both and the futility of trying to put new wine into old wineskins. Thus the Zhuangzi says,

    ‘The ruler precedes, and the minister follows; the father precedes, and the son follows; the elder brother precedes, and the younger follows; the senior precedes, and the junior follows; the male precedes, and the female follows; the husband precedes, and the wife follows. This precedence of the more honourable and sequence of the meaner is seen in the (relative) action of heaven and earth, and hence the sages took them as their pattern. The more honourable position of heaven and the lower one of earth are equivalent to a designation of their spirit-like and intelligent qualities. The precedence of spring and summer and the sequence of autumn and winter mark the order of the four seasons. In the transformations and growth of all things, every bud and feature has its proper form; and in this we have their gradual maturing and decay, the constant flow of transformation and change. Thus since Heaven and Earth, which are most spirit-like, are distinguished as more honourable and less, and by precedence and sequence, how much more must we look for this in the ways of men! In the ancestral temple it is to kinship that honour is given; in court, to rank; in the neighbourhoods and districts, to age; in the conduct of affairs, to wisdom; such is the order in those great ways. If we speak of the course (to be pursued in them), and do not observe their order, we violate their course. If we speak of the course, and do not observe it, why do we apply that name to it?’

  6. Only tangentially related, but on sexual dimorphism. I do not allow it to stand anymore when someone says that just your private parts are different. That is usually greeted with:
    “Oh really. Your hip displacement is the same as a womans? But I bet with a drop of blood I can decide if you are a man or a woman.”

    Everything in our bodies is _massively_ different. And fighting it causes misery.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.