"Women and children can afford to be careless. Men cannot."
-- The Godfather
Some of this may be restating the bleeding obvious, but I had a bit of an epiphany on the subject of why feminism's drive for equality between the sexes is horribly misconceived, and I thought I might tease it out here.
In essence, sex relations come down to expendability. But not the way you might think.
Roaming across the bluepilled fields of youtube as you do, I came across a video on sex roles in earlier history by a guy who, having just triggered my epiphany, probably deserves to remain nameless. Suffice it to say he's a historian who thinks the Hugh Grant, polite-but-socially-awkward-Englishman persona works for him. But he produces a lot of videos about how most medieval life as portrayed in films is largely bullshit, from the forging of swords through to the random wearing of leather armbands for no apparent reason.
Anyway, I came across a video he made about the power of the different sexes in society. And the central plank of his thesis in this video struck a chord with me: contrary to every feminist screed you've ever heard, women were and are not expendable for the vast majority of our history. Men were. And still are. In essence, women are not (or are less) expendable than men primarily due to their capacity to give birth, as opposed to men whose prime capacity is to inseminate women. This leads to a cold economic result: if you lost half a tribe's men, the remaining men could still repopulate the tribe. It's a biological reality. If you lose half a tribe's women, it's a different story entirely.
This is the simple reason why, if there was a threat to the tribe, men were generally sent to confront it rather than women: because ultimately you can afford to lose a man or two quelling an existential threat to a pre-industrial (or industrial) tribe, but you're much less able to afford losing a few women. (That's leaving aside men's physical prowess, which is necessarily superior to women across the board. Biology intersects with economics here: we can inseminate more women, and we are physically stronger. We are built to be less essential, as individuals, to the process of reproduction than women are.)
This seems to work as a reason for the comparative rarity of alpha males even in ancient society. Males being expendable, a man needed some serious resources behind him if he was going to keep more than one woman as a wife and mother of his children. Taking an example or two from religious texts, accepting them as imperfect historical documents: Islam, a rather impressive example of a social order untainted by roughly fourteen hundred years of technological innovation, authorises polygamy but only if the man can logistically/economically support each wife he brings in. In the Old Testament, King David of Israel has any number of concubines and wives, but he's a fucking king, not Samuel Fuckowitz the local grass merchant. Again and again we see the many-partners male invariably coupled with large resources -- because a man only started to become less expendable from a reproductive point of view when he possessed superior resources to those of his fellow men.
In the West, this expendability -- and women's subconscious awareness of it -- is on show for any pre-40s woman who rides the cock carousel. Amy Schumer actually put it eloquently into words as a point of personal pride: "I weigh a hundred and sixty pounds and I can catch a dick whenever I want!" This is certainly an observation on the thirst of a good number of men, but it's also a powerful confirmation of the expendability of men as women of reproductive age see them in our current society.
This expendability is not to be frowned on. The awareness of it is responsible for male innovation and pretty much all technological and societal progress over the past six thousand years of human history. Knowing you are just another replaceable cog in the wheel from more or less your teenage years focuses the mind wonderfully: you are much more primed to be objective and to pursue goals that will lead to a benefit to you and those close to you. You are more inclined to do something to better society as a whole, raising you out of the morass of expendability. You are, in short, far better equipped to compete.
Women, however, for a vast chunk of history have been seen as either less expendable or not expendable at all. Indeed even women outside monogamous relationships -- lovers, mistresses, prostitutes -- have all had privileged places in society and often disproportionate power compared to that of their peers. In passing (and it's a point this historian) made, for every woe-is-me arranged marriage set up over the years, there were two nonconsenting parties to the marriage: the man and the woman. Women were largely protected and did not have to compete for resources while bearing children.
Either way, where does feminism come into expendability?
Feminism seeks to make the sexes equal. After all, that's what equality feminists keep telling us. They seek to remove sex roles. First problem is that this is literally seeking to change hardwired sex responses: the historian talked about an experiment conducted in a kibbutz in Israel where boys and girls were given precisely the same education in every way, but still gravitated towards male and female interests and roles according to their genitalia. We also know that male and female brains are markedly different; this is a matter of biological fact.
But the second problem is that feminist ideals might seek to elevate men and women to the same position of being non-expendable ... but the reality is that, necessarily, both sexes become expendable and society becomes a scrum for resources where it is literally survival of the fittest. And women are not the fittest - physically or psychologically. It's not their fault; they are attempting to compete in a race where men have a ten to fifteen thousand year lead. But it's also a really daft way to organise your society. The mythical gender pay gap supports this thesis: put women and men together on the same field and women cannot compete. They are stuck with their biology and their hormones in favour of having kids.
I did give some thought to the Chinese experiment, how ruthless selection in favour of boys has left that country with an excess of men, and how that factors into the proposition that men are expendable. The thing to remember there is that the Chinese experiment is artificial and precisely the opposite of normal sex relations: China instituted a one-child policy to retard its population growth, not hold it level or increase it. The result, therefore was actually to render women expendable in precisely the way equality feminists demand. If you are trying to retard, or do not care about, population growth then there is no rational reason to give women special advantages targeted to their sex. The result, then, was predictable: when both sexes are mandated as expendable, it is boys who are rationally preferred because they're better adapted to dealing with survival of the fittest conditions. The one-child policy was survival of the fittest instituted by a government. And men won out, convincingly. On the other hand, though, Chinese society lost, even more convincingly: in the next 20 years, absent a baby boom its workforce is about to start aging rapidly.
Cock carousel culture is doing much the same thing, though. Feminism, and women giving up their cunts to every bad boy with a couple of tattoos, are making women masculine. But that masculinity -- fucking whoever they like, drinking as much as they want, playing chicken with the biological clock -- comes at a price: if you want to fuck, drink, and do stupid shit like a man, you must become and accept that you are expendable like a man.
The frightening part is that technology is leaping ahead so quickly that it may, within the lifetimes of some of the younger members of this forum, become possible for reproduction of the species to occur on a mass scale without any involvement of women at all. If that takes place it will not be men who become extinct; we have seen that even in societies where men and women are supposedly equal it is still predominantly the men who must hold that artificial balance in place. The drive for equality between the sexes, absent a post-scarcity society, is one that can only result in the destruction of the sex which requires "compensation" to keep up. Men, because we are expendable, because we have adapted to that hard biological fact over several thousand years, are better competitors. Women, by demanding equality, make themselves expendable, and lose any value-adding they had for themselves in the equation.
-- The Godfather
Some of this may be restating the bleeding obvious, but I had a bit of an epiphany on the subject of why feminism's drive for equality between the sexes is horribly misconceived, and I thought I might tease it out here.
In essence, sex relations come down to expendability. But not the way you might think.
Roaming across the bluepilled fields of youtube as you do, I came across a video on sex roles in earlier history by a guy who, having just triggered my epiphany, probably deserves to remain nameless. Suffice it to say he's a historian who thinks the Hugh Grant, polite-but-socially-awkward-Englishman persona works for him. But he produces a lot of videos about how most medieval life as portrayed in films is largely bullshit, from the forging of swords through to the random wearing of leather armbands for no apparent reason.
Anyway, I came across a video he made about the power of the different sexes in society. And the central plank of his thesis in this video struck a chord with me: contrary to every feminist screed you've ever heard, women were and are not expendable for the vast majority of our history. Men were. And still are. In essence, women are not (or are less) expendable than men primarily due to their capacity to give birth, as opposed to men whose prime capacity is to inseminate women. This leads to a cold economic result: if you lost half a tribe's men, the remaining men could still repopulate the tribe. It's a biological reality. If you lose half a tribe's women, it's a different story entirely.
This is the simple reason why, if there was a threat to the tribe, men were generally sent to confront it rather than women: because ultimately you can afford to lose a man or two quelling an existential threat to a pre-industrial (or industrial) tribe, but you're much less able to afford losing a few women. (That's leaving aside men's physical prowess, which is necessarily superior to women across the board. Biology intersects with economics here: we can inseminate more women, and we are physically stronger. We are built to be less essential, as individuals, to the process of reproduction than women are.)
This seems to work as a reason for the comparative rarity of alpha males even in ancient society. Males being expendable, a man needed some serious resources behind him if he was going to keep more than one woman as a wife and mother of his children. Taking an example or two from religious texts, accepting them as imperfect historical documents: Islam, a rather impressive example of a social order untainted by roughly fourteen hundred years of technological innovation, authorises polygamy but only if the man can logistically/economically support each wife he brings in. In the Old Testament, King David of Israel has any number of concubines and wives, but he's a fucking king, not Samuel Fuckowitz the local grass merchant. Again and again we see the many-partners male invariably coupled with large resources -- because a man only started to become less expendable from a reproductive point of view when he possessed superior resources to those of his fellow men.
In the West, this expendability -- and women's subconscious awareness of it -- is on show for any pre-40s woman who rides the cock carousel. Amy Schumer actually put it eloquently into words as a point of personal pride: "I weigh a hundred and sixty pounds and I can catch a dick whenever I want!" This is certainly an observation on the thirst of a good number of men, but it's also a powerful confirmation of the expendability of men as women of reproductive age see them in our current society.
This expendability is not to be frowned on. The awareness of it is responsible for male innovation and pretty much all technological and societal progress over the past six thousand years of human history. Knowing you are just another replaceable cog in the wheel from more or less your teenage years focuses the mind wonderfully: you are much more primed to be objective and to pursue goals that will lead to a benefit to you and those close to you. You are more inclined to do something to better society as a whole, raising you out of the morass of expendability. You are, in short, far better equipped to compete.
Women, however, for a vast chunk of history have been seen as either less expendable or not expendable at all. Indeed even women outside monogamous relationships -- lovers, mistresses, prostitutes -- have all had privileged places in society and often disproportionate power compared to that of their peers. In passing (and it's a point this historian) made, for every woe-is-me arranged marriage set up over the years, there were two nonconsenting parties to the marriage: the man and the woman. Women were largely protected and did not have to compete for resources while bearing children.
Either way, where does feminism come into expendability?
Feminism seeks to make the sexes equal. After all, that's what equality feminists keep telling us. They seek to remove sex roles. First problem is that this is literally seeking to change hardwired sex responses: the historian talked about an experiment conducted in a kibbutz in Israel where boys and girls were given precisely the same education in every way, but still gravitated towards male and female interests and roles according to their genitalia. We also know that male and female brains are markedly different; this is a matter of biological fact.
But the second problem is that feminist ideals might seek to elevate men and women to the same position of being non-expendable ... but the reality is that, necessarily, both sexes become expendable and society becomes a scrum for resources where it is literally survival of the fittest. And women are not the fittest - physically or psychologically. It's not their fault; they are attempting to compete in a race where men have a ten to fifteen thousand year lead. But it's also a really daft way to organise your society. The mythical gender pay gap supports this thesis: put women and men together on the same field and women cannot compete. They are stuck with their biology and their hormones in favour of having kids.
I did give some thought to the Chinese experiment, how ruthless selection in favour of boys has left that country with an excess of men, and how that factors into the proposition that men are expendable. The thing to remember there is that the Chinese experiment is artificial and precisely the opposite of normal sex relations: China instituted a one-child policy to retard its population growth, not hold it level or increase it. The result, therefore was actually to render women expendable in precisely the way equality feminists demand. If you are trying to retard, or do not care about, population growth then there is no rational reason to give women special advantages targeted to their sex. The result, then, was predictable: when both sexes are mandated as expendable, it is boys who are rationally preferred because they're better adapted to dealing with survival of the fittest conditions. The one-child policy was survival of the fittest instituted by a government. And men won out, convincingly. On the other hand, though, Chinese society lost, even more convincingly: in the next 20 years, absent a baby boom its workforce is about to start aging rapidly.
Cock carousel culture is doing much the same thing, though. Feminism, and women giving up their cunts to every bad boy with a couple of tattoos, are making women masculine. But that masculinity -- fucking whoever they like, drinking as much as they want, playing chicken with the biological clock -- comes at a price: if you want to fuck, drink, and do stupid shit like a man, you must become and accept that you are expendable like a man.
The frightening part is that technology is leaping ahead so quickly that it may, within the lifetimes of some of the younger members of this forum, become possible for reproduction of the species to occur on a mass scale without any involvement of women at all. If that takes place it will not be men who become extinct; we have seen that even in societies where men and women are supposedly equal it is still predominantly the men who must hold that artificial balance in place. The drive for equality between the sexes, absent a post-scarcity society, is one that can only result in the destruction of the sex which requires "compensation" to keep up. Men, because we are expendable, because we have adapted to that hard biological fact over several thousand years, are better competitors. Women, by demanding equality, make themselves expendable, and lose any value-adding they had for themselves in the equation.
Remissas, discite, vivet.
God save us from people who mean well. -storm
