Home

Life Coaching

Communication Coaching

Coach Bios

 

Library

 

 

 For more information, contact:

   Gary Schouborg, PhD

   (925) 932-1982

   gary@garynini.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Schouborg, Gary (2006).

" Battle of the Sexes Resolved".

 

 

Battle of the Sexes Resolved

 

Gary Schouborg

 

The following explains how I discovered the meaning of the vaunted female linguistic superiority over the male, and the implication for resolving the age-old “battle of the sexes.”

 

The role of female conversational facility among other females is obvious. It’s a harmless way to pass the time and distracts them from dwelling on the deficiencies of their male companions. But why are females so much more loquacious than their male counterparts when they are alone together? The answer remains a mystery until we realize that all the words streaming from female to male are simply variations of the one, primal command, “Fetch.”

 

I came to this realization through an arduous and often terrifying series of experiences called online dating. Being a thinker with almost non-existent fetching skills, I initially and naively assumed that when a woman advertised for a man with intelligence that I might fill the bill. Alas, I quickly and brutally discovered that for women “intelligent” only means “good fetcher.” There’s nothing more disdained by the female species than a mere thinker.

 

Although I was at first personally devastated by this insight, as a thinker I happily had the inner resources to turn lemon into lemonade by seeing that this realization provides the solution to the never-ending battle between the sexes.

 

I traced the root of this totally unnecessary conflict to the transition from the hunting-gathering, to the agricultural, era. The significance of this shift has been lost until now, because the macho skills required of hunters took our attention away from the more salient fact that they were merely fetching for their women. In other words, our DNA is essentially matriarchal, with men in the subordinate role of fetchers. This primal role has been further obscured by the nomadic nature of the hunter’s prey and the growing bureaucracy of the later, agricultural function.

 

Because prey do not stay in place, hunters were forced to move with them. From our confused contemporary perspective, we’ve assumed that the men decided to move the camp and the women dutifully followed. But this is like saying that the mule decides where to go and the cart dutifully follows. On the contrary, once we discover that all female communication with the male is a variation on the command, “Fetch” — including that most thrilling of all commands, “Fetch the fleshy dildo” — we can understand that it was the female who insisted the camp be moved so that the male job of fetching could be productive.

 

(Some critics of my research object that when gathering food, women also fetch. But clearly, food gathering was a primitive form of shopping. No serious researcher holds that a woman shops primarily to fetch for her mate. Further support for my general thesis is that we refer only to women, not men, as "fetching," meaning "worth fetching for." Other critics argue that the extraordinary complexity of the female linguistic function can't be explained simply in terms of fetching. But this ignores the fact that the shopping mind always sees itself in a target-rich environment. In addition, great linguistic skill is required just to drag the male attention span away from the one command — "Fetch the fleshy dildo" — to which he responds like an eager puppy.)

 

Confusion about gender roles first arose when agriculture led to a hierarchy of fetching that eventually developed into what we now experience as urban civilization. Fetchers found that growing, storing, and distributing food could be done more expeditiously if they organized into a hierarchy. Here again, the obvious obscured the real. Competing for head fetcher made it seem as if males were running the show, leading to the ubiquitous but delusional old saw that, “It’s a man’s world,” along with the companion illusion that, “Behind every successful man is a supportive woman.” We can now see that in fact the higher up the socioeconomic ladder the male climbs, the more fearsomely has he been commanded to fetch.

 

The preceding framework allows us to see clearly the nature of our contemporary crisis and the unnecessary suffering that both sexes have endured since our days of hunting. Under the illusion that they were running the show, men became confused and emotionally disconnected from their roots. As a result, they began chafing under the pressure of fetching for someone who was incorrectly supposed to be their subordinate. Women in turn became so confused that they agitated to compete with men. We’re now in the turmoil of men rebelling against their natural function of fetching and women fetching for themselves. The latter misguided activity has become so extreme, and women so distrustful of men as reliable fetchers, that increasing numbers of feminists have felt compelled to switch from fleshy to plastic dildos.

 

The path out of this labyrinthine torment is clear: men need to recover the primal satisfaction from fetching that is their inherent birthright; and women need to acknowledge with equanimity and compassion that it’s been a woman’s world all along. I searched out this truth from the noblest of motives, since as a thinker I stand not to benefit from the situation whichever way it goes.