LJ_Reloaded
バクスター の
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Posts
- 21,217
(Warning: may be too complicated or long for the illiterate masses here.)
There’s one basic fact that makes life very hard for feminism as a concept.
Women are hypergamic.
You know that whole thing about male power and oppression and all that? Women prefer men with status and power over those who lack it. This power can manifest in many ways - charisma, physical dominance, positions of leadership, financial resources, and so on. Ever wonder why almost all women including many feminists have the hots for bad boys? It’s because of this. A man has to have one of these traits in order to be sexually attractive to a woman. And this does not just apply to human women - this is true for females of every animal species out there - at least the ones where the female doesn’t eat the male (spiders, insects, etc).
Here’s an experiment worth trying. Take 100 women and have each spend an hour with the captain of the college football team and then with the towel boy. Repeat the same with a doctor and then a pharmacy tech. Then a high powered attorney versus the male receptionist at another law firm. A uniformed firefighter versus a cubicle worker. A date with a guy on his yacht versus a date anywhere on land with a working class man. The vast majority of women are going to choose the former, guaranteed.
Also, feminists, consider the insults you use against men who disagree with you. Small penis, short, can’t get laid, neckbeard, fat and ugly, outcast, bronies… all of this is basically inferring that he’s a powerless loser. How many insults were thrown at Bill Clinton when he was accused of groping by women such as Kathleen Willey? None, at least by feminists. Oh, you don’t remember Kathleen Willey? That’s because Clinton was a powerful man and even feminists sometimes forgive powerful men. The women that these powerful men molest… sucks to be them.
Ever picked up a romance book? Absolutely every one ever written (the BDSM world being a notable exception*), is about men with power. Try writing one that goes outside that rule: it simply will not sell. Now going outside that rule sells well with feminists - for a while - but for the general populace you do not do well selling anything that goes outside that rule.
You’ve got the Patriarchy thing all wrong. Men gained the power they have because without it, they would not even be mating material. Yes, of course, plenty of men without power do have wives and girlfriends. This is entirely because only a small fraction of men have sufficient power to be truly sexually attractive and, well, harems don’t usually work out well for women: women don’t like to share. So for most women, they must choose to either go without and die lonely and/or childless, or settle for a man who has little or no power. Again, this is not just “reductive evo-psych” - it’s reliable, every day reality, and not just among humans. Ever hear of the term ‘locking horns’ or ‘alpha wolf’? Look it up. Males of other species compete, often violently, for dominance; only the winner ever gets to mate. This isn’t Patriarchy; it’s biology.
In essence, while feminism demands to be equal with men, most women lose interest in their man when they’re equal to him, much less when she has more power than he does. Then they blame the man for being all consternated about her liberation, when what started it was she started seeing him as less of a man.
The problem here is not Patriarchy. Patriarchy is the symptom of hypergamy, it is not the root cause of gender inequality. If feminism wants to get at the root of gender inequality they need to address hypergamy instead of denying its existence (as feminists habitually and reflexively do) and going into a jihad-level rage at the sight of the word. Patriarchy exists because men seek power, and men seek power because women demand men with power, and the vast majority of women only SETTLE for men without power when men with power are unavailable. Feminism has to address this if the movement ever hopes to achieve success on a larger level than stamping out brush fires.
Okay, so how does Patriarchy relate to Hypergamy?
Simple. Because women strongly prefer men with power, resources or who have the appearance of someone who can acquire such, men have always sought these traits in order to become attractive to women. Even in the modern post-feminist world, women who are on equal power footing with the man in their lives, tend to stop being attracted to him. There are some exceptions to this rule, but a woman becoming a man’s socioeconomic equal is a reliable threat to a relationship. And contrary to feminist propaganda it is not because the man resents her, but rather, the problem starts when the woman loses respect for the man.
Thus, to hold the respect of a woman, a man needs power and dominance, or at least the appearance of such. This is what gave birth to Patriarchal culture.
There isn’t much need to explain Patriarchal culture since it is very well-known, so let’s keep it brief. Patriarchal culture greases the path for men to achieve the status and power that they need in order to become attractive to women. It helps keep men in power over women, a condition without which, historically speaking, women would not have ever found males to be attractive enough to mate with. This has had a number of devastating consequences for men and women alike - such as denying success opportunities for women (a glass ceiling), and severely punishing men who fail to achieve power (a spiked floor). Of course, feminists blame all of men’s problems on the Patriarchy, as we all know, while ignoring the fact that Hypergamy was the cause of the Patriarchy: women are as much the cause of their own and men’s problems, as men are.
The problem here is quite obvious: the Patriarchy was a piss-poor solution to the problem of female Hypergamy. It may have, however, been the best solution that humans could come up with, given the limitations of human philosophy and political understanding thousands of years ago when the Patriarchy was first born. It was a cheap, quick solution that, when a society settled upon it, they managed to surge ahead of competing societies and rise to dominance. Instead of thinking things out further and seeking a more egalitarian solution, they stopped at the first working idea - Patriarchy - and since it didn’t seem “too broke” the world didn’t bother with fixing it. The law of nature was observed here - why waste excess energy seeking perfection when what you have, solves the problem at hand? Had egalitarianism been a thing back then it would seem, to them, a solution without a real problem. Again: wasteful.
One could also argue that humanity’s level of technology also made it difficult to reach for the goal of egalitarianism: for instance, genetic testing is a recent invention that helps us fight back against paternity fraud. One of the most important facets of Patriarchal society was to fight the RAMPANT problem of paternity fraud which gave women the right to have sex with one man she liked, and trick another man to support the resulting child. Now we don’t need Patriarchy to fix this: genetic testing can do the job just as easily.
The third barrier to moving past the Patriarchy solution was women themselves. Getting women to not rely on men for their livelihoods was a reliable way to make men unattractive to women. In both the human and animal kingdom, females judge males by strictly utilitarian standards. If he’s powerful enough to protect the family then he’s mating material (and in some species, he’s also her food). If not, he’s utterly and completely useless. The exceptions to this are unbelievably rare across almost (if not) all animal species. In other words this part of evo-psych is very, often deadly, reliable truth.
The real solution to female Hypergamy was not to counterbalance it with Patriarchy. The better solution would have been to look at women’s attitudes about mating and push back against that. Just as modern feminism sees fit to demand that men change their attitudes about sexual attractiveness, the same should have been done regarding women’s attitudes. In the light of modern feminism and the not at all unnecessary push for equality, this is imperative.
In the modern age, with the onset of modern technology, men now have a non-coercive means of weeding out Hypergamy from the gene pool. Japanese men, en masse, are in the process of doing so right now, with the massive Herbivore Man subculture: they are simply refusing to participate in satisfying women’s Hypergamic urges. From this, men around the world, particularly in the West, have the power to fight the madness of Hypergamy without resorting to the madness of Patriarchy: they can simply refuse to deal with women who are Hypergamic.
This would never be easy for Western men, of course. Who hasn’t heard of how painful it is for a man to go single and lonely for years at a time? And it’s true that women do better than men when deprived of sex for years at a time. A lot of women are just happy to settle down with their pets rather than be with a man. Some women even see men as utterly useless no matter what. However, there is a flip-side to that: their biological clock eventually catches up with them. Eventually, all but the most hard core man-haters are forced to realize they can’t get Prince Charming and his billion dollar castle, and have to settle for one of the working class masses - someone, mind you, who is her socioeconomic peer. Or, her clock runs out, and she removes herself from the gene pool: effectively meaning one less Hypergamic female in the gene pool.
It may just come to that: purging Hypergamic women from the gene pool. Not by the hands of some knuckle dragging murderous troglodyte psycho, but by the sheer rejection of these women as mates.
And why would you want to mate with a Hypergamic woman anyway? She doesn’t love you for you. She loves you for your status. You’re a thing to her - a means to an end. When your status falls, she no longer wants you around. At best she stays with you because she promised to, for better or for worse: a social obligation and the (rarely realized) threat of shame upon her for abandoning you when you’re down. Hypergamic women are downright poisonous and while their company makes you “not lonely,” in the long term, they bring you ruin… as in abject loneliness in the end, and often bitterness, as well as an early death from the stress of keeping these women happy and ultimately (thanks to random economic shifts) failing to do so.
Of course rejecting Hypergamic also means a lot of men fall out of the gene pool - but what else is new? Most men never manage to reproduce anyway. But this nonviolent solution will also give these men some dignity, and select for women who do not see men as success objects to fulfill selfish Hypergamic goals.
Selected reading:
* There is also the TV series Chuck. And it was revolutionary because it broke this rule and had the woman protagonist saving and then falling in love with the helpless male (helpless for the first two seasons at least). No popular TV series has done this since.
There’s one basic fact that makes life very hard for feminism as a concept.
Women are hypergamic.
You know that whole thing about male power and oppression and all that? Women prefer men with status and power over those who lack it. This power can manifest in many ways - charisma, physical dominance, positions of leadership, financial resources, and so on. Ever wonder why almost all women including many feminists have the hots for bad boys? It’s because of this. A man has to have one of these traits in order to be sexually attractive to a woman. And this does not just apply to human women - this is true for females of every animal species out there - at least the ones where the female doesn’t eat the male (spiders, insects, etc).
Here’s an experiment worth trying. Take 100 women and have each spend an hour with the captain of the college football team and then with the towel boy. Repeat the same with a doctor and then a pharmacy tech. Then a high powered attorney versus the male receptionist at another law firm. A uniformed firefighter versus a cubicle worker. A date with a guy on his yacht versus a date anywhere on land with a working class man. The vast majority of women are going to choose the former, guaranteed.
Also, feminists, consider the insults you use against men who disagree with you. Small penis, short, can’t get laid, neckbeard, fat and ugly, outcast, bronies… all of this is basically inferring that he’s a powerless loser. How many insults were thrown at Bill Clinton when he was accused of groping by women such as Kathleen Willey? None, at least by feminists. Oh, you don’t remember Kathleen Willey? That’s because Clinton was a powerful man and even feminists sometimes forgive powerful men. The women that these powerful men molest… sucks to be them.
Ever picked up a romance book? Absolutely every one ever written (the BDSM world being a notable exception*), is about men with power. Try writing one that goes outside that rule: it simply will not sell. Now going outside that rule sells well with feminists - for a while - but for the general populace you do not do well selling anything that goes outside that rule.
You’ve got the Patriarchy thing all wrong. Men gained the power they have because without it, they would not even be mating material. Yes, of course, plenty of men without power do have wives and girlfriends. This is entirely because only a small fraction of men have sufficient power to be truly sexually attractive and, well, harems don’t usually work out well for women: women don’t like to share. So for most women, they must choose to either go without and die lonely and/or childless, or settle for a man who has little or no power. Again, this is not just “reductive evo-psych” - it’s reliable, every day reality, and not just among humans. Ever hear of the term ‘locking horns’ or ‘alpha wolf’? Look it up. Males of other species compete, often violently, for dominance; only the winner ever gets to mate. This isn’t Patriarchy; it’s biology.
In essence, while feminism demands to be equal with men, most women lose interest in their man when they’re equal to him, much less when she has more power than he does. Then they blame the man for being all consternated about her liberation, when what started it was she started seeing him as less of a man.
The problem here is not Patriarchy. Patriarchy is the symptom of hypergamy, it is not the root cause of gender inequality. If feminism wants to get at the root of gender inequality they need to address hypergamy instead of denying its existence (as feminists habitually and reflexively do) and going into a jihad-level rage at the sight of the word. Patriarchy exists because men seek power, and men seek power because women demand men with power, and the vast majority of women only SETTLE for men without power when men with power are unavailable. Feminism has to address this if the movement ever hopes to achieve success on a larger level than stamping out brush fires.
Okay, so how does Patriarchy relate to Hypergamy?
Simple. Because women strongly prefer men with power, resources or who have the appearance of someone who can acquire such, men have always sought these traits in order to become attractive to women. Even in the modern post-feminist world, women who are on equal power footing with the man in their lives, tend to stop being attracted to him. There are some exceptions to this rule, but a woman becoming a man’s socioeconomic equal is a reliable threat to a relationship. And contrary to feminist propaganda it is not because the man resents her, but rather, the problem starts when the woman loses respect for the man.
Thus, to hold the respect of a woman, a man needs power and dominance, or at least the appearance of such. This is what gave birth to Patriarchal culture.
There isn’t much need to explain Patriarchal culture since it is very well-known, so let’s keep it brief. Patriarchal culture greases the path for men to achieve the status and power that they need in order to become attractive to women. It helps keep men in power over women, a condition without which, historically speaking, women would not have ever found males to be attractive enough to mate with. This has had a number of devastating consequences for men and women alike - such as denying success opportunities for women (a glass ceiling), and severely punishing men who fail to achieve power (a spiked floor). Of course, feminists blame all of men’s problems on the Patriarchy, as we all know, while ignoring the fact that Hypergamy was the cause of the Patriarchy: women are as much the cause of their own and men’s problems, as men are.
The problem here is quite obvious: the Patriarchy was a piss-poor solution to the problem of female Hypergamy. It may have, however, been the best solution that humans could come up with, given the limitations of human philosophy and political understanding thousands of years ago when the Patriarchy was first born. It was a cheap, quick solution that, when a society settled upon it, they managed to surge ahead of competing societies and rise to dominance. Instead of thinking things out further and seeking a more egalitarian solution, they stopped at the first working idea - Patriarchy - and since it didn’t seem “too broke” the world didn’t bother with fixing it. The law of nature was observed here - why waste excess energy seeking perfection when what you have, solves the problem at hand? Had egalitarianism been a thing back then it would seem, to them, a solution without a real problem. Again: wasteful.
One could also argue that humanity’s level of technology also made it difficult to reach for the goal of egalitarianism: for instance, genetic testing is a recent invention that helps us fight back against paternity fraud. One of the most important facets of Patriarchal society was to fight the RAMPANT problem of paternity fraud which gave women the right to have sex with one man she liked, and trick another man to support the resulting child. Now we don’t need Patriarchy to fix this: genetic testing can do the job just as easily.
The third barrier to moving past the Patriarchy solution was women themselves. Getting women to not rely on men for their livelihoods was a reliable way to make men unattractive to women. In both the human and animal kingdom, females judge males by strictly utilitarian standards. If he’s powerful enough to protect the family then he’s mating material (and in some species, he’s also her food). If not, he’s utterly and completely useless. The exceptions to this are unbelievably rare across almost (if not) all animal species. In other words this part of evo-psych is very, often deadly, reliable truth.
The real solution to female Hypergamy was not to counterbalance it with Patriarchy. The better solution would have been to look at women’s attitudes about mating and push back against that. Just as modern feminism sees fit to demand that men change their attitudes about sexual attractiveness, the same should have been done regarding women’s attitudes. In the light of modern feminism and the not at all unnecessary push for equality, this is imperative.
In the modern age, with the onset of modern technology, men now have a non-coercive means of weeding out Hypergamy from the gene pool. Japanese men, en masse, are in the process of doing so right now, with the massive Herbivore Man subculture: they are simply refusing to participate in satisfying women’s Hypergamic urges. From this, men around the world, particularly in the West, have the power to fight the madness of Hypergamy without resorting to the madness of Patriarchy: they can simply refuse to deal with women who are Hypergamic.
This would never be easy for Western men, of course. Who hasn’t heard of how painful it is for a man to go single and lonely for years at a time? And it’s true that women do better than men when deprived of sex for years at a time. A lot of women are just happy to settle down with their pets rather than be with a man. Some women even see men as utterly useless no matter what. However, there is a flip-side to that: their biological clock eventually catches up with them. Eventually, all but the most hard core man-haters are forced to realize they can’t get Prince Charming and his billion dollar castle, and have to settle for one of the working class masses - someone, mind you, who is her socioeconomic peer. Or, her clock runs out, and she removes herself from the gene pool: effectively meaning one less Hypergamic female in the gene pool.
It may just come to that: purging Hypergamic women from the gene pool. Not by the hands of some knuckle dragging murderous troglodyte psycho, but by the sheer rejection of these women as mates.
And why would you want to mate with a Hypergamic woman anyway? She doesn’t love you for you. She loves you for your status. You’re a thing to her - a means to an end. When your status falls, she no longer wants you around. At best she stays with you because she promised to, for better or for worse: a social obligation and the (rarely realized) threat of shame upon her for abandoning you when you’re down. Hypergamic women are downright poisonous and while their company makes you “not lonely,” in the long term, they bring you ruin… as in abject loneliness in the end, and often bitterness, as well as an early death from the stress of keeping these women happy and ultimately (thanks to random economic shifts) failing to do so.
Of course rejecting Hypergamic also means a lot of men fall out of the gene pool - but what else is new? Most men never manage to reproduce anyway. But this nonviolent solution will also give these men some dignity, and select for women who do not see men as success objects to fulfill selfish Hypergamic goals.
Selected reading:
- http://www.ebony.com/love-sex/the-power-principle#axzz3FwBf4URG
- http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/dating-blog/why-women-like-powerful-men
- http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jmtowsen/Publications/JT-male status & polygyny-Post Standard0001.pdf
* There is also the TV series Chuck. And it was revolutionary because it broke this rule and had the woman protagonist saving and then falling in love with the helpless male (helpless for the first two seasons at least). No popular TV series has done this since.
