Honey Talks.

Is there anything sweet about a half truth circus?

The Honeybee and the Robber by Eric Carle

I’m pretty sure that I’m not a bee.

I find it fascinating how selective that gender essentialist instagram carousel doing the rounds is detailing the scientific and natural justifications for matriarchy.

For what it’s worth - I too think it’s pretty evident that society needs rapid evolution/reconnection and yes matriarchal / matrilineal societies have and will provide more balance. It’s clear where this greed driven boys club system is headed and the immense damage it’s caused.

Initially I thought perhaps I was triggered from an egoic place as a man by this women’s supposed “downgrading” of my place in society. But in all honesty I felt a genuine anger reading a white woman’s depiction of what human actions are considered “secondary”. And it felt more in keeping with the vitriol written about empire and white supremacist racial categorisation than an edgy generalisation on an entire sex.

Men being able to lift things, or god forbid build things, by her remit is considered secondary. She went onto refer to men as interchangeable and compared male behaviour to that of male bees. “Drone like”. She lists that men’s desire to have sex with nearly any living breathing thing is confirmation of their simple inner lives and continues on to make the point that men don’t want to be in charge anyway. The latter I agree with.

The writer made some salient points about males generally preferring a less violent environment which would require that a society groups together to “remove” the particular males causing trouble. But this was amidst a long list of comparisons to animals and ultimately concluded that patriarchy isn’t natural.

Reading gender essentialism from a self proclaimed feminist is absolutely wild to me. I’m so accustomed to dismantling and challenging the argument from the actual manosphere that it feels as if the conversation is eating itself. “Men don’t see us as human”. Is a valid statement I read from women a lot. Fast forward and I’m trying to come to terms with men being compared to the behaviours of a flying insect. And also just a reminder - Jordan Peterson came to prominence by asserting that the neuroscience of lobsters confirmed a natural proclivity towards hierarchy and status. He was ridiculed for it.

Gender essentialism taken to its fullest extent basically excuses the large majority of reprehensible male behaviour simply because we were “born that way”. It also pushes women into a world of “inherent maternity” and “nurture” in spite of the reality that not all mothers are born with a natural ability to nurture. And attempts at household domestic equity can be dismissed on account of women’s ability to “multitask”.

In terms of animal parallels, I’ve seen a lot of talk about Bonobos, being that they are our closest kin genetically. They are an incredibly intelligent primate and most notably live in matriarchal societies that feel balanced and relatively non violent. The carousel in question also mentions Lion prides and highlights the reality that the lionesses both hunt and organise the pride. With the male lion acting as overseer / protector but, again, kept in line by the Lionesses.

Both parallels I’m here for. What I’m not here for is the fact that the writer chose to omit the reality that neither of those animal species are monogamous. And in fact, that plays a huge part in what’s considered to be non violent comparatively to humans. Perhaps it’s just an oversight from the writer or perhaps she didn’t feel it important but if we’re going to make sweeping assertions on human social order then surely we have to be prepared to interrogate every part of it?

The worker bee / lion / elephant in the room for me is that this sexual drone like behaviour the writer describes exists within a capitalist monogamous framework that patriarchy invented. The fascinating evolution on the part of bonobos, was that the females in their societies actually increased sexual activity within their groups to lower levels of infanticide. Logic being that if all the female chimps had sex with all the male chimps in that particular group, the male chimps wouldn’t know which chimp would be his “rightful heir” or not. Ultimately sexual freedom is encouraged and with that came the belief that any newborn chimp is the responsibility of the entire group. None more or less important than the other.

Same with Lions. I’m not sure if for the same exact reasons but there is no monogamy amongst prides at all. In fact, if we are really going to lean into what the earth deems as “natural” - monogamy might be one of the least common set ups on the planet. It’s something like 6% of all animals are truly monogamous and the large majority of them are birds. And lobsters. Hilariously.

I’m very open about the fact that I have had a troubled and complex relationship with sex. I practice monogamy because I love my partner, that’s what we have agreed and it’s in keeping with societal expectation. I also learned the hard way what it feels like to be considered a “cheat” in our modern western society. There is next to no nuance. And, again, in spite of many many stories of women themselves betraying men, cheating is often included within the conversation of why men are abusive/simple/moronic/problematic etc. I saw it recently included in a TikTok explaining why it’s “all men”. Apparently men not preventing other men from cheating was reflective of patriarchal complicity. I have many female friends and I doubt many of them would sell out their besties on account of morality. But that’s case by case.

Monogamy is a devise used to guarantee lineage and legacy. Once men realised that a child was created from a single sperm // patriarchy hit a whole new stratosphere. From that came socially ingrained sexual repression and shame. Specifically towards women so as to not jeopardise legitimacy. It would be a while until romanticism as a movement and then eventually marriage becoming a declaration of love rather than unions of tribal power. But the origins remain the same. So how is it that we’ve arrived at a place where committed monogamy is aspirational for the modern man and woman and sexual freedom still considered something to be grimaced at? Female bonobos encouraged sexual liberation to reduce infanticide. Right now boys are being prescribed into armies to die en masse for exploitative men seeking generational wealth and legacy. Boys. Can you see why it’s confusing to me that these insights weren’t included?

Ultimately for there to be authentic societal change we all have to contend with our programming however that shows up. Whenever I talk about sex or relationships in this way I’m accused of trying to manipulate an argument in favour of men or even gaslighting women into // I guess being ok with men stepping out or something to that effect. When trying to write a television adaptation of my book, which is hinged on me reckoning with betraying an ex partner, I was criticised for attempting to “humanise” cheating. Which was me. It was a surreal experience. Betraying someone’s trust in any context is soul destroying. Would not recommend. Cheating has existed as long as relationships have and yet we seem unwilling to have realistic conversations about what’s “natural” when that comes into play. What I do recognise is that the conversation also becomes derailed by the reality that — within this monogamous framework that patriarchy invented and western colonialism / religious doctrine enforced — we have also made the world of sex unbelievably dangerous.

Me even making the point that a more sexually liberated society could actually result in greater peace is heavily tainted by how grossly perverted society has made a part of our lives that we are nearly all destined to explore. As I’ve said in previous writing - it baffles my spicy little brain that so many global issues and atrocities seem so tightly interlinked with sex. Whether that be a desire to control it, sell it, abuse it. We’ve only seen half of these Epstein files and some of the conversations are repulsive, vile, gut wrenching, infuriating. Again - mostly because it revolves around a man with a questionable amount of power using that to exploit children. Whether that be sexually or with torture.

I don’t want to lean too much into that space here because the depravity is extreme. What’s more relevant to me is the variation and kinds of men casually or formally engaging with these conversations, wants and desires.

We need to talk about sex a lot more and in my opinion reconnect with what sex used to be. With the ways in which it was explored in ancient cultures. I’m not making out as if ancient cultures were perfect or there weren’t elements of subjugation. But it does surprise me how often I read about cultures attitudes towards sexuality and gender pre colonialism and how often it’s interlinked with being matrilineal.

As men being raised under capitalist patriarchy we can easily find ourselves becoming completely invisible. Sometimes I wonder if that’s why we shout and get loud bikes and cars and shiny things or whatever (not that women don’t) because actually we look for our worth externally and without it we aren’t “seen”. Be that by men or women. Especially if a man is conventionally “unattractive”, poor and socially awkward having had no guidance. We can end up walking through days, weeks of our lives never being looked at in the eyes for more than a second. Only in response to something. We certainly wouldn’t be looked at by a woman we found attractive // of course this a heteronormative angle. I see this reality hijacked by manosphere scammers constantly. Because it’s real and at its root - it’s devastating.

Quite the reverse for women of course. Who just want to be left alone. Who just want to be able to walk along a street or road and not constantly be seen or ogled or approached with no prior suggestion or hint. I have read about the experience women have when they become older and then “less attractive” through a capitalist patriarchal lens and how confronting that invisibility can feel. One particular story was from a model who of course would have experienced a greater sensitivity to that as being seen would have presumably internalised as her value.

I do wonder if that’s also part of the disconnect. Because men so desperately want to be seen. And I myself have fallen foul to wanting to express that longing to women without grouding myself and remembering that my desire to be seen doesn’t immediately partner with fear. My wanting to be seen and appreciated or even just smiled at (which happens when you leave cities) doesn’t come with a risk. And actually. When I have been at gay bars with friends or to be honest even countries that are proactively racist - being seen feels very different even to me. It would to any man. Generally speaking heterosexual men would have a greater understanding of consent if they all had to try and party in gay bars full of UFC fighters. Perhaps that would really put what women face into perspective.

But I talk to women a lot. I have a many female friends. I read a lot of female literature. I really love women. In spite of my programming which of course I’m still very able to slip into. And from the many conversations I’ve had it’s difficult to conclude that “men want sex more than women”. Another myth // in my opinion // fed subconsciously to the masses. That or women just want to feel “overpowered”.

Men think about sex this many times a minute. Blah blah. All I can ascertain is that it’s about safety. When I first started to explore alternative approaches to relationships when I was younger, one partner made the point that open sexual desire was a clearer path for me. Regardless of whether or not she herself had a similar drive. I wouldn’t have to consider near enough as much as she would when engaging in casual pleasure. I wouldn’t have to consider the danger of going back to their place. Maintain hyper vigilance. Question whether or not I’m being sold a dream. Ask myself who else lives with them. Will they stop if I say no. Can I even stop them if I do say no and they don’t.

Arousal, from what I understand, is closely intertwined with safety. There’s more nuance of course because I can attest that there’s various stimulus. But consent is ultimately the beautiful wondrous act of fluid, constant, communicative mutual understanding. Being able to engage in intimacy without the fear of repercussion in the back of one’s mind. Of course life is dangerous generally. And sometimes risk is exciting. But I just have an inkling that within a world where consent could change and shift and sex would not be able to happen without it. Men would, ironically, begin to feel and experience the kind of visibility and connection they so desperately crave.

But instead women have to look away. Because it’s genuinely too dangerous. Maintaining eye contact with a man in the wrong setting can genuinely lead men to believe that’s some kind of access. Paying for things - access. It’s nuts. A long hug - access. Seeing breasts - access. Everything has become so perverted, entitled and distorted it’s wild.

Hypergamy // the gendered exchange between love and beauty // was created out of a lack of female autonomy. In order to exchange female capital, which patriarchy had decided was / is beauty, women had to reduce the supply to increase the demand. A capitalist framework. And now look at the names we call women who have chosen not to lean into it.

And so yes we have to nest into these conveniently named nuclear families. Tiny little infrastructures where we basically mimic the system at large. A space where we as adults believe ourselves to be superior to pets and children. Where couples project their capitalist conundrums into shared space. Through physical and emotional aggression. Pleasure and sensuality is limited. A lot of people simply don’t have the time. Because life is about work.

And the work is to maintain the legacy of our immediate lineage. Perhaps some extensions by virtue of faith, race, location. But ultimately our children are ours to protect and people can’t be trusted. And it’s that mentality where I feel as though the work becomes slightly undone. Yes, I’m a proud hippy and people will largely dismiss my intentions or abstract approaches on account of a lack of realism or sustainability. But for me the truth is there is no reason why the concept of a parental role should be confined to genetics.

It’s already in third spaces where a proportion of lucky young minds can be inspired, guided and fulfilled by humans outside of their immediate genetic home life. Those spaces too - under threat. But it just goes to show how important that lack of “possession” really is. How incredible it is to lean into the belief that we are all responsible for the world’s children. Who are largely very vulnerable.

What do we really know about intimacy anymore? We parade around with gadgets and aspirations to live on mars and yet are arguably more out of touch than ever.

Why not create heaven on earth? A place where no one is scared to touch each other. A place where every one can have full confidence that they // are at the very least // seen as human?

Ps - it is true. A queen bee can be continuously groomed and fed and looked after while laying enough eggs to sustain a colony.

However, if the queen becomes old, sick, or stops laying, the worker bees will raise a new queen, often killing the old one in a process called “supersedure”.

Is that progressive?