I've been studying a significant bit of evolutionary psychology lately. It's essentially the field of science that covers why we as humans have evolved to think the way we do, pretty self explanatory. A couple interesting things that I've learned is that male humans have specifically evolved to hunt in groups, while female humans have specifically evolved to care for children and forage. This explains why men are naturally better at coordinating in groups and planning, as well as being physically strong, while women are more gentle and caring, along with possessing a variety of traits that assist in the foraging process. One of these traits is that women are able to differentiate between different shades of colors far better than men. This specific evolution occurred to help them identify certain types of plants, fruits, and berries, which in turn increased their chances of survival when they chose the ones that weren't poisonous. This might also explain why it's typically women that commit themselves to houseplants and the like. It would be foolish to say that only women like plants because I myself am deeply interested in plants, although it might be the case that women enjoy growing and caring for plants because it satisfies a primal instinct of theirs, while men might be more interested in the "systematic" nature of plants (i.e. identifying, organizing, planning gardens, etc. all satisfy the natural male urge to systematize and plan things out). Thinking in this new way is incredibly liberating, especially in the modern age where even so much as acknowledging that there might be a psychological difference between men and women is seen as bigotry and misogyny. By understanding the evolution behind why people make certain decisions and do certain things, it helps also understand which lines of thought are reasonable and valid, and which are not. For example, the rise in popularity of the "social justice" movement throughout western society has been largely spearheaded by women, no doubt, who are very emotional and empathetic. Being that women are naturally inclined to express empathy toward all beings, it only makes sense that there would be a significant push for equality at all costs. By equality I'm of course referring to the increasingly popular idea that all people are equal and are all capable of the same things if given the proper opportunity. This is a stark contrast from the statement "all equal under the law" which I happen to agree with. I believe that, legally, all humans should be considered of equal value, none being above the other in the law. However, this doesn't mean that all people are naturally equal. Some people are born taller and can reach higher. Following this push for equity (different from equality) to its logical conclusion, the short will be given stools so that they are able to reach just as high as the tall. Some people will say this is a good thing as no one deserves to have a genetic advantage over others. If this is you, I ask you this: If that is your logical conclusion, at what point will we begin altering genes to ensure complete uniformity across all society? Some call it a push for equality, I call it a push for the abolition of individuality, which western society seems to wholeheartedly support ever since the industrial revolution. Industrialized society directly benefits from stripping its citizens of all individuality, making them "easily replaceable cogs in the machine." If something happens to you and you can't do your job well, no worries, they can and will easily find someone else to take your place. Everything within industrial society is designed to be replaceable. Gone are the days of living your entire life surrounded by people you know and care about, each person being special and unique and important in your life. Now we've been conditioned, by public schooling and the workforce, to be replaceable. Some people now can go their entire lives with no real connection to anyone at all, something that would have been unthinkable just a few centuries ago. There is a book I'd like to read when I'm able titled The Lonely Crowd. The title itself describes the essence of its contents, being about how even though we are within the crowd, we all keep to ourselves and don't say a word to one another, not even exchanging so much as a glance to the person you pass on the street. I know you've experienced this, and I know you don't like it. Some people get the idea that this is just what socialization is like, and thus they grow to hate socialization even more. These people are "introverts", though I prefer to call them "unsocialized" because calling them introverted implies that it is an immutable trait rather than an underdeveloped skill. You can't change a trait, but you can practice a skill.

To bring the topic back to the ideal society, I believe it is one where people live in small communities or villages and have a genuine connection with the people that they see on a daily basis. The village produces its own food, clothes, and other works, and is largely self-sufficient. Because of the tight-knit community and relatively isolated nature of the villages, the people within them begin to develop their own cultural ideas and practices heavily influenced by the environment around them. The wisdom that the villagers have obtained throughout their lifetime is passed down to the new generations so that they are raised to be strong and virtuous. Though men and women are treated fairly and as equals, both understand their differences and compliment each others' strengths and weaknesses. Men being the farmers and women being the harvesters; men growing the cotton and women making the clothes from it; men raising the children and women caring for them; men upholding tradition and women developing new ones, and so on. I believe that one of the biggest reasons that western society's struggles are so great is that men and women are not socially allowed to talk about or even acknowledge their differences, and when you take an animal out of its natural habitat, it will undoubtedly become miserable and hopeless, as is the same with humans.