I did not write this but I want to know who did.

Anyone have any idea who wrote this?

Example:

This bloke comes over and wants to shag your partner (from the traditional male point of view). He thinks he is the better gene strain, though he may not be aware this is an accurate expression of his motive, and he wants to shag everything in order to best ensure the perpetuation of that gene strain. She knows, if all her girlie-bits are in working order, she will perpetuate her gene strain regardless and should attempt impregnation by the best she can find to improve the chances of her offspring surviving to breed in their own turn.

Man against man, not for personal survival but for sureness in mind. He wants to shag her. What are you going to do about it? All or nothing, dependent upon on the life expectancy in conflict with the challenger. Win some, lose some. Better to survive with genitals attached and to shag someone less dangerous/sought after than to die without having bred. Violent competition is not unnatural to a man. Unfortunately.

The "civilisation" of modern society has done much to cloud this simplicity by imposing rules and inventing structures for relationships. Though less clear in the cold light of day, the dull of evening and the effects of alcohol or similar drugs, in removing the conditioned reflex of modern inhibitions, can find this primal survival instinct showing itself quite readily. Many a fight begins with the words "What (are) you looking at?"

So, to recap, man cannot naturally be certain he has bred, that the child a woman carries and bears is actually his. The woman can know. Only in circumstances of exceptional promiscuity will a woman have any doubt about who the father was. Man knows woman has this edge. It is something he can never take away. Unable to equally compete with woman, man used his physical strength advantage to change the rules and thus bias the game heavily in his favour.

Marriage.

The state of marriage, in primitive survival terms, is of no use to a woman. To man, however, to create an artificial allegiance, and to justify it by clever combination of the two old standards of oppression, religion and restriction of education, is to create an image of supremacy, an image of control. If, by moral and religious engineering, man can instil guilt within and have society ostracise any woman who dares to respond to her natural instinct to perpetuate her gene strain to greatest effect he assumes a very real, if fragile, control. Ever sub-conscious of this fragility, modern man is nervous.

Education.

By restricting women's access to education and rendering them an underclass, man took on all the responsibility of providing. This took time. To provide adequately could take a lot of time. Spending all this time making the outside world their exclusive domain and burdening themselves with the commitment to work, each individual man found they had less power over their own partner precisely because this contracted separation gave the womenfolk more time to be themselves.

Machines.

The advent of the machine age backfired somewhat for man. The single area where man had had a genuine advantage over woman was in physical strength. Machines that made man's work less strenuous rendered it within the capability of woman. Revolution had become possible. The religious and moral engineers were urgently called upon to enhance the oppression and it became absolutely crucial women remained unable to gain access to education and the proof of man's deception.

War.

Mechanisation of war was the single most profound error on man's part. Men fought. Women didn't. It was the man's rule. Oops. Whereas prior to the age of machines each warrior could kill only a very few of the enemy before being overcome, if only by tiredness, and individual battles only lasted a day, now it was possible for even small people to kill hundreds of the enemy and barely break into a sweat. The quality of the warrior became second to the quality of his equipment. In the 1914-1918 war in Europe all sides were pretty evenly matched. An unprecedented and previously incomprehensible number of men died.

Peace.

While all the men were off being manly and killed, the women had been encouraged through necessity to carry out tasks and to take on duties that they had been raised to believe were beyond their capabilities. This period of emergency emancipation during the conflict, and the concurrent significant reduction in the male population, marked the end of the total patriarchy that had been the way since the dawn of "modern civilisation".

The country not having completely fallen apart in the four or five years they had been preoccupied with slaughtering each other for the sake of a redrawn map, males of a nation saying to males of other nations collectively "What (are) you looking at?" before mechanically beating each other up, it simply wasn't possible to pretend women were less than capable.

Whilst it was impossible, under these new circumstances, to deny the vote to women, it was deemed prudent to only allow the vote to women over thirty years of age. Any women with the vote, therefore, will have been raised in the pre-war oppression and will be less likely to play seriously with the status quo. Whilst this was a magnanimous gesture, the odds remained in the male favour with the simultaneous granting of the vote to all males over twenty-one. This imbalance held for ten years.

War again.

Much of the same but with more modern, advanced and efficient killing machines. More men die. A few more women die, too, especially thanks to the aeroplane. But the overall effect is the same. The differences between male and female roles blur further still.

Peace (ish)

A better educated and post-war-cynical populace naturally diminished the power of the Churches. The efficiency of killing technology had become so great no country would exist if they started a fight and lost. Automation in the workplace left very few tasks the preserve of the physically strong. Man had no advantage. The establishment would remain until its own rules, created under an assumption only men would have a say in what transpired, ate at its fabric enough for it to crumble to dust.

The contraceptive pill.

If a woman didn't want a baby she didn't have to have one. Note how the Roman Catholic Church still refuses to permit contraception. Note a patriarchal regime still insistent nobody at all shagged Mary. Note how likely that is. Consider how likely it is a woman made it up. A woman would have had a girl child. But then again, a woman wouldn't have needed to make it up at all.

The Present.

Information is everywhere. Men can't pretend anymore. They are back kicking their heels and showing off to each other. And it isn't going to get any better for them. Your average 1996 man is flailing wildly in a changing world. The values his ancestors held and taught are seen to be bollocks. To some, the inherent advantages of such sociological distortion outweigh the callousness of the oppression, but they would, whatever. To others, it sits as an uncomfortable heritage, an embarrassment and sometimes a guilt. The average is a total uncertainty. It will take a long time for the average man to accept this uncertainty is beyond his control.