Now that I have your attention, this essay will focus on gender rather than the messy exchange of bodily fluids.

The Fireaxe theory focuses on violent conflict in its analysis of how human consciousness formed and how ideologies interact. The prevalence of violent conflict between nations is also a common topic of feminists when critiquing our male dominated world. Since women are much less violent than men it is often argued that a female dominated society would be much less violent than the current one if not utopian in regards to conflict. In this essay I will show how this conclusion is faulty and how sex roles, both traditional and modern, contribute to the violent nature of ideologies.

The Fireaxe theory makes no mention of gender and in effect states that gender is irrelevant, that ideologies are essentially forced into being aggressive and violent due to the need to compete against their often hostile rival ideologies. Since aggression is a survival advantage, ideologies which cultivate that trait in its members will thrive where others will not. Thus, inherent in the theory is the idea that ideologies led by women will be just as aggressive and violent on average as those led by men.

This is not to say that as individuals women are just as aggressive as men, which is incorrect regardless of how one twists the term, but it is also incorrect to say that all men are more aggressive than all women. Even though the general rule holds, that men are more aggressive than women, there are wide differences within each sex and so there are many exceptions to the rule. History shows that a small number of women have become great leaders regardless of the ideology they follow and there have always been a minority of vocal, determined women in every culture who have held their own against men and strongly influenced their culture. Even in countries where women are harshly repressed this is true. But it must also be said that those women who have risen to the top are very different from their less aggressive sisters. Indeed, they are more masculine in many ways.

This probably explains the, shall I say, violent reaction that most feminist leaders have when confronted with the facts that men and women really are profoundly different. In their personal experience aggressive women feel equal to men and they have good reasons to fear a society that expects all women to fit into gender stereotypes. Feminist leaders are exceptional women who have often been held back by prejudice. However, studies have long linked aggression and dominance behavior to testosterone, a hormone that men have in generally far greater quantities than women, undermining the idea that gender specific behavior is all just a social construct. But there are large variations in hormone levels within either sex and so one would expect a few women be on equal physiological footing with their male counterparts. And although testosterone isn't the whole story behind aggression, it is a major player in human behavior.

The Fireaxe theory suggests that individuals of either sex with higher levels of testosterone will rise to positions of leadership in any ideology since the ideology needs to be aggressive to survive in a hostile world. Also, it suggests that the ideology will contain doctrine which encourages dominant individuals to achieve leadership positions. However, since overly aggressive individuals can be detrimental when placed in a leadership position, there may also be ideological mechanisms to prevent such individuals from rising too high. And thus I would expect above average to high levels of testosterone to be the norm for leaders of either sex. The fact that far more men will have such levels of testosterone than women falls in line with the greater number of men in leadership position and supports this assumption along with the fact that ideologies lead by women are by no means submissive and pacifistic, but what I'd really like to do is to get every president, prime minister, and dictator to fill a specimen bottle so that I can put my assumptions to the test.

Traditional gender relationships are generally based on one partner, usually the male, being dominant and the other, usually the female, being submissive. In this arrangement there is order. Although negotiations can take place, and often do, there is a clear understanding of who makes the final decisions. Responsibilities for both members in the relationship are well defined in these traditional relationships and in days long past in western culture the local community played a strong role in making sure that relationships stayed together and that each member did their part.

The role of the community, which is set by ideological doctrine, cannot be understated concerning traditional relationships. In any relationship where one party submits to the other there needs to be a counterbalancing force which prevents the dominant party from abusing its power. The community serves as that counterbalancing force in traditional relationships, protecting the female and making sure that the male does his duty. Furthermore, the community encourages dominant behavior in males while discouraging similar behavior in females, in effect forcing everyone to fit into gender stereotypes and play specific roles in a relationship. Males are encouraged to engage in competitive activities where dominance is established in various contests, mainly those which primarily reward brute strength, and thus high testosterone, while females are encouraged to be supportive of others and cheer their favorites from the sidelines. While basic physiology supports this type of relationship to a degree, it is clear that traditional relationships fail to account for diversity within the sexes. This puts dominant women as well as non-dominant men into conflict with the social order and also with their own sense of self. Furthermore, when studying both primitive cultures and our closest primate relatives it is clear that lifelong monogamy is not the natural state of humans. Although our physiological makeup leans towards male dominance in relationships, it does not lean so far as that expected in traditional relationships. So, why are traditional sex roles so different from the natural order?

When you consider the oppositional nature of consciousness (The Burning Blade 8.2) it is clear that internal strife is not necessarily detrimental to an ideology, and in fact ideologies which enforce unrealistic sex roles benefit from the practice. When you impose restraint and monogamy on people whose physiology tends towards a certain amount of promiscuity, internal conflict results. Ideologies take advantage of this conflict by linking the forces which make people want to break the rules with the ideology's adversary. For Christians this means that the desire to have sex out of wedlock is said to be the work of Satan, and that temptation and sin leads to eternal torment. For secular ideologies, this means that inappropriate sexual desires are dubbed perverse, animalistic, or disrespectful of others, and that giving into them will lead to one being socially ostracized or incarcerated. In any case, deviant desires conjure thoughts of the adversarial relationship between an ideology and its enemy, be it a mythical creature, social degeneration, or fundamentalism. All of the sudden a person's natural feelings are transformed into the invasion of enemy forces into the battleground of the person's body or imaginary soul. A battle is then fought, and if the person successfully defeats those forces through self-discipline he is rewarded for his restraint and his allegiance to the ideology.

Of course, it is important that the followers of an ideology win these internal battle more often than they lose them, so an ideology's rules for sexual relations can't diverge too far from normal human behavior. However, the stronger the battles are, the more rewarding the victory is, and so a system which features highly unnatural sexual behavior and also severe punishments for those who disobey will produce followers who are highly motivated to fight hard and fight often against ideological adversaries. With victory after victory, these followers will become well conditioned to follow the ideology since they have beaten powerful foes in its name. They will support the ideology since it supports their self image as a mighty warrior and devoted servant. It is also important to point out that the feeling of victory in these internal battles tends to outweigh the good feeling of having a more natural relationship. Since members of an ideology have a permanent sense of inadequacy, and this is partly because they are forced into unnatural idealized sex roles, they have a great need to experience victory in one form or another. Proving one's self through self discipline is but one of many ways to make those feelings in inadequacy go away.

Contests with adversaries, both real and imaginary, serve to strengthen an ideology. And since aggression is a survival advantage, it is important to reward dominant behavior so that the more dominant members of an ideology gain positions of power. Although it seems obvious that dominant individuals in an ideology will naturally rise to the top, it is often the case that those already at the top pass down their power to those less deserving through nepotism, cronyism, and simple bribery. Corruption can reduce the aggressive quality of an ideology's leaders not to mention their competence, and this tends to happen quite often, if not invariably, regardless of the governing system. Thus it is important to have contests, or some form of meritocracy, when determining who is to assume leadership roles. Furthermore, since seeking a dominant role often puts one on the path to self betterment, and this is because success requires more than just testosterone, dominance is often encouraged in many other areas instead of just leadership. An ideology thrives when all of its members are working hard to be the best that they can be so that they can be victorious over rival ideologies.

In ideologies which feature traditional relationships between males and females, females are discouraged from being dominant or exhibiting dominant behavior. However, they play very powerful parts by rewarding men who display dominant behaviors. Not only are men who win contests and show their prowess applauded by the cheering crowds, they are also strongly desired by swooning women, which generally allows them to choose the most desirable of a number of women for marriage. Additionally, few things make a man feel more "manly" than winning a contest and feeling his woman resting soft and compliant in his arms. I'm told that even modern women enjoy this romance novel kind of experience too as do modern men. In this way women contribute to the aggressive nature of ideologies, not by being aggressive, but by rewarding aggression and assisting aggressive men by serving them as wives and lovers. Women provide men with a powerful incentive to compete.

Furthermore, women swoon not only over contest winners, such as sports heroes and politicians, but over men who present themselves in masculine or dominant ways. Men in the armed forces and any man in uniform will make a woman's heart race. Rock stars make women swoon due to the fact that they are the center of attention during a concert, and the masculine swaggering and generally sexual content of their music doesn't hurt either. Women are also attracted to tall men, muscular men, and men who assert authority over others, or at least those who claim to be superior, and all of this is true both in traditional relationships and in modern relationships. So men still fight with each other to be the things that women desire.

There are, however, a number of large differences between traditional and modern relationships. First of all, in the modern landscape, there is no unified community which holds traditional style relationships together. Instead, females have been liberated from their submissive sex role and as a result are expected to protect themselves from males who would abuse their power over them. Males have also been liberated from their sex role in that they are not expected to live up to their obligations to women whom they are seeing. In fact, men may abuse their power over women, or rather, any power that women surrender to them, to quite a large degree provided that they do not do anything illegal. Lying to women to get sex and walking out on vulnerable women carries a lot less of a social stigma in modern relationships. Females beware! But the liberation of women and the acceptance of dominant behaviors in females have allowed women to lie too as well as use a multitude of devious methods to get what they want out of their relationships with men. Males beware!

The modern landscape is one where both sexes are assumed to be equals regardless of their physiological differences and the community reinforces the notion of equality, especially in terms of personal responsibility. In essence, the modern creed is "if things go wrong in your life, it's your fault". As a result the traditional relationship has foundered since it often needs outside assistance to survive. In its place is the modern relationship where both males and females are seen as independent equals who come together out of convenience to fulfill each others needs. Absent the kind of tight codependency which typifies the traditional relationship, the modern relationship does not often endure given that the needs of both parties often change over time. And since many modern people are independent, leaving a modern relationship is not as traumatic as leaving a more traditional one although divorces involving children can still be very messy.

Though liberated from traditional sex roles, competition for attention in the modern landscape is even more fierce than in the traditional landscape. With essentially everyone free to "hook up" whenever they please and with many people having the ability to leave their unrewarding relationships without worrying about finances or the social stigma attached to divorce or promiscuity it is increasingly difficult to maintain a relationship no matter how much it is valued. One must always be desirable to their partner or to potential suitors and this means proving one's worth up against one's rivals at all times. Also, staying in or even landing a relationship can be difficult if one is not blessed with natural advantages. Thus, being aggressive and increasing your desirability are extremely important. In this way it appears that dominant behaviors by males are more prominent in modern societies than in traditional societies since males are constantly vying for female attention. Also, females, being less submissive, are more difficult to impress in the traditional way, so men feel the need to be even more masculine and dominant to compensate for that. Of course, women are still subject to the physiological leanings of their bodies regardless of what the social norms expect and thus most females still swoon in the presence of a dominant male. However, this swooning does not last for long. Modern females have learned that swooning is the fastest way to end up used and abused with a broken heart. So the blissful feelings that typify the first part of any relationship are always tempered by a realistic vision and vigilance against betrayal. This is the tragic downside of modern relationships. After having one's dreams of a long and fulfilling relationship dashed by a cheating, unresponsive, or untrustworthy partner, both females and males are reluctant to give themselves as openly the second, or third, or fourth time around as they did the first. In the absence of trust, intimacy suffers, and the natural desire for intimacy goes unfulfilled.**

The modern relationship is thus characterized by a lack of submissiveness by either party and a need to be dominant, or at least vigilant, due to a profound lack of trust. It is here where ideologies which espouse sexual equality generate a similar yet opposite kind of internal conflict as do those which support traditional relationships. Although freedom and equality are the ideals of modern western ideologies, co-dependency and a dominance and submission style relationship, albeit with allowances for some amount of promiscuity, is the more natural state of human beings. This creates friction between a person's natural desires and ideological expectations which in turn produces conflict in human relationships. To state this more simply, the traditional relationship demands too little freedom while the modern relationship demands too much. Either situation is fine for an ideology since all that matters it that ideological ideals diverge from the natural order. Establishing "healthy" relationships is not in the best interests of the ideology since by keeping people conflicted, the ideals of the ideology are being constantly reinforced via internal struggle.

This is one of the main messages of the Fireaxe theory, that survival of the ideology is more important than the interests of its members and that ideology is superior to biology when it comes to being the driving force behind human behavior. Ideologies fight for survival against each other and to compete successfully they must control and motivate their members more than rival ideologies do. Keeping humans in a state of frequent internal conflict is one way of doing so since being in a persistent state of inadequacy creates a need that the ideology can fulfill. If a person is denied the satisfaction that comes with a more natural relationship they are motivated to work hard for their ideology in order to gain satisfaction in other ways. In traditional relationships, social constraints and boredom can lead to feelings of inadequacy with the church waiting to give direction and purpose to a lost soul. In modern relationships, the lack of trust and absence of a strong bond can lead to feelings of inadequacy with numerous salesmen waiting to fill the void with products that promise better and greater things. Interestingly enough, in the modern landscape it is not so much self-discipline which is rewarded, but self-indulgence. That is the dogma of capitalism. Furthermore, ideals, whether it is the fiftieth wedding anniversary of a happy couple, finding true love with your soul mate, or hooking up with all of the hottest players in the city, always seem within reach but are in reality only accessible to the lucky few. The "impossible dream" is the engine that drives ideology by keeping people in a state of dissatisfaction with their current life.

In either role, traditional or modern, females contribute to the aggressive and often violent nature of ideologies. Even if they are not performing violent acts or sending troops into battle females support and benefit from the institutions that give ideologies warlike power. Although it has liberated men and women from traditional sex roles, feminism has done nothing to change the aggressive nature of western ideologies. In fact, it has legitimated female aggression and resulted in men becoming even more aggressive in response. Competition in all areas has become more intense as women line up next to men in the fight for dominance. And while the ideals of modern ideology are still unreachable by most, feelings of inadequacy still abound, and internal conflict is still omnipresent, it is clear that the liberation of women has resulted in a successful ideological mutation. So if this doesn't sound like a good deal to you, keep in mind that what is good for the ideology and what is good for individual humans are not necessarily the same thing. The survival of the ideology is what's important, your survival and life satisfaction is less so.

Lastly, the hallmark of modern western ideologies is the power of the free market, and this is the state that modern relationships are rapidly heading towards. The free market has made so many things readily available twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week that it seems natural that selecting new lovers will become as easy as getting food from a drive-through window. Looking for someone long term? Select from this menu. Looking for a one night fling? How about one of these selections? It would seem that all desires will be catered to and how can that possibly be a bad thing? But the trouble is that the free market does not necessarily produce stable, optimal outcomes. First of all, what people may want is not always what they need. Secondly, what people want is not always what they get. And thirdly, like the stock market, the relationship market has bear and bull cycles which are sometimes interrupted by sharp corrections. So while it appears that further liberation and more freedom is an unstoppable trend, a harsh reversal is likely to be waiting in the wings.

** As an aside, it is interesting to note that the liberation of women from traditional sex roles has resulted in a loss in their power over men. In the traditional case, women gain power by having a large majority collude to withhold sex from men until they gain a lasting commitment. The few women who do not participate are branded as harlots and shunned, which keeps their numbers down and prevents most men from achieving sexual satisfaction without making a concession. In the modern case there is no more collusion and women must use other means to attain a long term relationship. Currently this situation has played into men's hands since they have easier access to sex and can delay marriage longer, but if they ever sign those marriage papers, their wives end up with tremendous financial leverage over them due to the current draconian divorce laws. These laws are out of step with modern trends, but either may change in the near future.