There is No Fixing This

At the root of human experience is the will, an automatic, pre-rational force that drives life, action, and survival. This will manifests differently in male and female biological essence, reflecting general tendencies shaped by evolution. Masculine essence tends toward action, competition, and outward projection of force, while feminine essence tends toward receptivity, relational focus, and the management of social cohesion and reproduction. These are tendencies, not moral prescriptions, and they emerge from biology rather than conscious choice.
On top of these raw impulses sits the identity-making, interpretive layer of self. Here, humans generate narratives, explanations, and rationalizations to account for their behavior. This layer observes and interprets the impulses of the will, attempting to organize them into coherent personal and social stories. However, because it operates after the fact, it often misattributes causation, believes it can control the will, and overlays moral or ideological meaning onto instinctual drives.
Conflict arises because animal impulses are inherently in tension. Male and female wills, particularly in reproduction, are not perfectly aligned. Each has goals shaped by evolutionary pressures: survival, reproductive success, and social positioning. At the same time, humans possess another instinct: the drive to construct myth and cultural narratives. These myths—religious, romantic, or social—attempt to harmonize, justify, or elevate behaviors beyond their raw biological function. They serve to stabilize the group, provide shared meaning, and enforce social norms. But myths often clash with the underlying biological will, producing internal and collective tension.
For example, a religious narrative might assert that men and women are designed to live in perfect harmony, while the biological will still generates competition, desire, and conflict. Romantic myths overlay idealized expectations onto the dynamic, while reproductive impulses continue operating in parallel. These overlapping layers—pre-rational will, identity/narrative, and myth—interact in complex ways, producing contradictions that neither narrative nor rational thought alone can resolve.
Awareness emerges when one begins to perceive these layers simultaneously: the impulses of the will, the interpretive narrative trying to make sense of them, and the mythic overlays that distort or elevate them. True insight involves observing the conflict without assuming control, seeing that much of what humans think they decide is already generated by deeper processes. One recognizes that the will moves first, identity forms afterward, and myths are often attempts to reconcile what cannot fully be reconciled.
At this level, awareness allows for the recognition of the tension between masculine and feminine essence, between biological drive and cultural narrative. It does not attempt to enforce harmony or resolve conflict but sees the architecture of the human mind in action. The result is a meta-conscious understanding: behaviors, attractions, and conflicts are no longer purely personal or moral failings—they are the natural unfolding of multiple interacting layers of existence.
Politics and human drama consistently try to solve problems that arise from competing wills operating in hiddenness by applying external pressures to the visible outcomes of those wills, rather than addressing the underlying currents themselves.
This will not change any time soon, so be assured that no solutions will appear for the recurring issues in this lifetime or for many generations to come. There is no reward except permanent isolation of consciousness for figuring this out.
There is no fixing this. Not in policy, not in culture, not in relationships. The tension is structural. Harmony is a myth sold to children and romantics. What can be achieved is private lucidity: the silent, solitary recognition that the game is rigged not by malice or society, but by biology itself. That recognition offers no social reward. No applause. No partnership. No legacy. Just the cold clarity of a mind watching its own machinery without illusion.

Intelligence operates inside the narrative layer. Consciousness steps behind it.

To "see" this requires an internal position shift. A relocation of the self’s vantage point. Intelligence solves problems. Evolved consciousness sees the structure that produces problems. Intelligence tries to influence behavior. Consciousness recognizes the prior force from which behavior emerges.

The will operates as an invisible prime mover beneath conscious awareness, igniting action long before understanding arrives. This built-in delay explains why early humans invented the concepts of “sin” and “curse” as part of their mythology: they needed a way to stabilize social groups and forge reliable alliances. To do that, they created rule-based systems—commandments, taboos, laws—that targeted specific behaviors known to disrupt harmony, such as violence or betrayal. The hope was to “get behind” the mysterious force and block it before it acted. Yet because the will always fires first, everyone inevitably failed these rules; no one could achieve perfect “righteousness” in real time.

Over centuries, a rare few developed (or were born with) sharper intercepting abilities: they could sense the impulse rising, label it, and let it dissolve without acting. These individuals described the will’s mechanics clearly and consistently avoided destructive behaviors. Because of their unusual control, they founded religions and became the living models for their teachings. Later generations mythologized them as “the perfect follower” or divine exemplar, editing their lives into flawless templates that ordinary people could aspire to but never fully replicate—since the same unstoppable will still ran beneath everyone’s awareness.

From this perspective, all conflicts—including the current gender conflict—are, for unconscious subjects of the will, effectively eternal and inescapable. Each polarity perceives the flaw in the other as an aberration, because the will’s bias shapes the way we observe and interpret opposing forces.

We see this in unconscious drives: one side manifests as aggressive mating impulses, while the other manifests as protective drives that establish selection protocols. Myths and cultural narratives then overlay these forces with the illusion that they are naturally harmonious, framing the tension between them as the true “aberration”—a claim opposite to what we actually observe.

On top of this, there is a natural tendency to align with others whose priorities match our own, collectivizing the will’s drives according to shared identity.

Conclusion? Good luck! Welcome to the wake up. It's time to leave the arena of nature's pantomime that performs to hide itself.

Men collectivize around access grievances. Women collectivize around safety grievances.

Male aggression is only tolerated in specific contexts—“corridors”—and typically from men who meet certain social, reproductive, or status criteria. On the surface, women (and the collective moral framework) condemn aggression broadly, but unconsciously the ego selectively permits certain expressions of it. The moralizing narrative acts as a cover story, presenting universal disapproval while masking the underlying selective tolerance that aligns with evolutionary and social priorities.

In other words, what is publicly condemned is filtered through the lens of who is acting and under what conditions, revealing that the moral stance often serves to hide the nuanced calculus of nature’s will.

The attempt to call out moral inconsistency is really an exposure of the selective preferences of the organism. In other words: women may say, "we dislike violent men," yet are aroused or drawn to particular types of them, even in cases where they are overtly domineering towards women. What’s happening is that the collective moral system is confronting the will of nature, and nature’s will responds with ad hoc narratives—excuses that allow individuals to avoid the guilt of having their natural impulses identified and morally condemned. This mode of trying to expose others is highly dramatic, yet fundamentally unresolvable. Anyone perceptive enough can identify the will of nature operating in another and use it to condemn the natural expression of their impulses.

Conclusion? No one can be consistently moral while being an embodiment of the will of the nature.

This is why the bickering between the genders cannot be resolved. The reasons why they dislike one another are hardwired and align with the immediate felt-sense of being.

Here is the real hard truth that people CANNOT tolerate:

Violence against women, in all of its forms, is a natural byproduct of the mating instinct in some species.

For example, there is a species of shark where, during mating season, the male sharks come up alongside the female and nibble or take bites as part of excitement. Sometimes, this kills the female.

Discovering this as a race of bipeds with consciousness leads to a moral paradox of being. Systems are produced to push back on this force of nature, but there are inevitable tradeoffs that punish people who do not act on nature’s will as unconsciously as others. This produces confused suffering in many beings. Women are selecting which "opposing force" they approve of and it is not necessarily without the same "sin of raw will" that others have. The surface story is a moral approval, but the real approval itself is guided by mechanisms under the hood.

In other words, the narrative used to describe female selection of males is framed as morality. However, when the will of nature reveals itself and is then criticized as morally inconsistent, ad hoc justifications are quickly invented to “run away” from its exposure. This kind of obfuscation appears almost universally whenever the will of nature is caught acting naturally by a moral system that demands consistency.

Men notice this inconsistency and often engage in online conflict with women to expose the will of nature. There really isn’t a higher-level resolution for this conflict—only the option to abandon it. The astute arguer can always publicly identify and condemn the will of nature in another, just as conscious women can correctly recognize the will of nature in men to pursue specific ends and then frame it as moral criticism.

Tragically, these drives form the foundation of the human race’s continuance. People make exceptions based on the bias of the will of nature—that is simply what we do.

The wills of nature are in combat to make excuses for their expression in the presence of other competing wills. Debate only reveals the mode in which the organism justifies its expression.

Back to INDEX