Ready for a quiz? Is the following news report true or false? A famous explorer just returned from his latest expedition with shocking news. He has located a remote and isolated island culture that generates electricity using the heat from nuclear reactors. What astounded him was that these islanders who had mastered nuclear and electrical technology were primitive in all other ways. They created electricity but used it only for lighting fires. They had no knowledge of medication, artificial fabrics, or transportation. They had no electrical appliances in their kitchens. In fact, they had no kitchens. They cooked outside their huts over wood fires that they ignited from huge electrical sparks obtained from their nuclear power plants. Well, what do you say? True or false?
Oh yes, I know you answered, “False,” but did you mean that you considered the story highly improbable or are you certain that it’s demonstrably untrue? The story is not only improbable but also impossible. The explorer is a fraud. There is an inevitable sequence to scientific discovery. No culture has or ever will discover the secrets of atomic structure before they understand the chemistry of the periodic table. Once people have probed the secrets of magnetism, the discovery of electricity will inevitably follow quite quickly.
This is why thousands of inventions and discoveries like reinforced concrete, refining of aluminum, and radio telephony came about through the efforts of more than one innovator working far apart from one another with no communication. Once the use of concrete and the invention of steel had both achieved maturity, combining them was an obvious next step. Not surprisingly that step occurred to several different people in different countries at about the same time. Huge bridges and towering skyscrapers soon followed.
Just as sequences are predictable in science and technology so are societal trends predictable in large gatherings of people living together. For instance, if you observed early human society discovering fire, you would accurately predict that cooking and baking would soon become ubiquitous. If you watched a later-period human society delink sex from marriage, you would accurately predict an eventual drop in the rate and durability of marriage and a climb in the number of children born to unmarried women.
Similarly, if you watched a human society in which boys remained boys prolonging adolescence into their 30s and 40s, you would accurately predict the eventual rise of what is loosely termed—feminism.
I read and hear much of men whining about women. They tell me that women don’t know what they want. Women aren’t honest. Women are bossy and pushy. Women are gold-diggers. Women are emotional. But the villain isn’t women, it’s boys who reneged on the social contract to become men. Women need men; they don’t need boys. As men morphed into boys, women filled the power vacuum. The boys obligingly surrendered.
That women are drawn to strong, confident, assertive men is clear to most normal women. Needless to say, that is a completely different statement from saying that women are drawn to adolescent brutishness and arrogance; they aren’t. Women desire to surrender themselves to a commanding and powerful man who is worthy of their love. With few such men in sight, many women, almost by automatic response, assume masculine characteristics. Naturally, the boys whine and complain never suspecting that, over time, their predecessors caused the very problems they now deplore.
Most social sequences are laid out for our understanding in ancient Jewish wisdom. For instance, this sequence I have described about masculine women (sometimes called feminists) resulting from boys reneging on their responsibility to become men, is presented to us here.
God speaking to Cain:
…and it [sin] will be attracted to you but you will be able to control it.
God speaking to Eve:
…and you will be attracted to your man who will be able to control you.
The Hebrew word I have translated as control is MaSHaL poorly translated in the King James and many subsequent translations as ‘rule’.
The Hebrew word meaning rule, to dominate by power, is SHaLaT
…there is a time when one man rules [SHaLaT] over another to his own pain
The reference here is to one man exerting sheer power over another.
However, MaSHaL means influencing and even controlling another by spiritual forces.
When I make a significant charitable donation because my friends around me are doing so, I have been influenced by the magic of MaSHaL not SHaLaT. I was neither forced nor subjected to a ruling by someone with power over me.
When God addressed Cain (Genesis 4:7) using the word MaSHaL, clearly Cain is not able to rule over sin or suppress it by force or a powerful decree. He can only overcome it with spiritual strength. The word MaSHaL has the same meaning when God speaks to Eve. He advises her that she would feel almost irresistibly drawn to a man with the ability to control her through his spiritual strength of will-power, determination and ambition.
She would feel little attraction for a weak man incapable of controlling her. Instead, if involved socially or romantically with such a man, she would end up controlling him to the ultimate unhappiness of both.
To be sure, when the industrialization of fabric weaving was developed by Hargreaves in about 1770, it was easy to predict the eventual plentiful and affordable availability of clothing. It was even more clearly predictable that when boys stopped becoming men in about 1966, women would stop being feminine and would become feminist. It was in early 1966 that Donna Reed’s TV husband, Dr. Alex Stone vanished when ABC ended the Donna Reed Show. He was eventually replaced in popular culture by the man/boy, Peter Pan slacker and the playboy. Donna Reed also vanished and in her place came Gloria Steinem. Most men would rather marry Donna Reed than Gloria Steinem. The problem is that Donna Reed would never marry a boy. She wants a man.