Summary: Previous posts in this series explained how the counter-revolution to modern feminism has begun, and how it might undermine the new social order. Before I predict how the gender wars will end, let’s see how we got here and what we have lost.
Taylor Swift sings about modern romance in “Blank Space.” She is the voice of women millennials, strong and independent, liberated from all rules.
It’ll leave you breathless
Or with a nasty scar
Got a long list of ex-lovers
They’ll tell you I’m insane
But I’ve got a blank space, baby
And I’ll write your name …
Screaming, crying, perfect storms
I can make all the tables turn
Rose garden filled with thorns
Keep you second guessing like
“Oh my God, who is she?”
I get drunk on jealousy
But you’ll come back each time you leave …
Boys only want love if it’s torture
Don’t say I didn’t say, I didn’t warn ya …
Swift is an extreme example of today’s young women. They ride the alpha carousel, surrounded by beta orbiters (their followers on social media and those they have friend zoned). They assume the betas like the abuse, since they are so eager for more. This is the end of the process begun with women’s liberation from the patriarchy. See an early version: “Girls Just Want to Have Fun” written in 1979, made famous by Cyndi Lauper in 1983 – a break from the traditional pattern of young women dating with the expectation of marriage by their early 20’s.
From this came the Girl’s Game successfully employed by so many women of Generation X (1964-1983): romance, party-of-her-life, marriage, kids, divorce, community property, child support, independence (for those of a literary turn, here’s how James Joyce would describe it (scroll to the second half). The key to women’s success at Girl’s Game was marriage when 26 – 32, plus romantically promising to marry “until death do us part” while ready to divorce as appropriate. Combined with a good career, many upper class gen X women have lived as close as possible to “having it all.”
Now the women of Generation Y (millennials) try their hand at Girl’s Game. The oldest are 34, and most have been successful at it. Marriage rates are falling, but slowly. Before saying what comes next we must understand how we got here. Oddly, little of the massive literature about women’s liberation discusses this. Comments to my posts show that many young men do not know this history. Logically, since it is ancient history for them.
What we were: patriarchy was a reward for marriage
Patriarchy was the reward for men joining the rat race. In exchange women got security, family, and children. The average guy and gal could make it work, since the roles were clear and feasible – and exit was difficult and disreputable. Spouses were partners. Sex was available, but not expected to be earth-shaking. Marriage was like most western institutions, built on low but solid ground.
The system was more attractive to women than men. Women were biologically enlisted by their fertility (before effective easy contraceptives). Young men, especially the stronger ones, often had to be pushed into the machinery. Societies across time and space had procedures to do so, including coming of age rituals, high status for husbands and fathers, and economic incentives. Men being naturally recalcitrant, women often had to entice men into their destined roles. Much of western literature describes this process. Here are a few of the countless examples of this in classic films.
This was also standard plot trope in books for men, both adults and young adults. For example, see Robert Heinlein’s science fiction, such as Beyond This Horizon
The revolution in marriage
Technological change (e.g., contraceptives, shift to service-based jobs) made possible the next phase in the evolution of western individualism. In Closing of the American Mind
“The old love relationship involved differentiated sexual roles — roles now interpreted as bondage and domination. …Now all of this has simply disintegrated. It does not exist, nor is it considered good that it should. …The goals and wills of men and women have become like parallel lines, and it requires a Lobachevskyan imagination to hope they may meet.…
“The souls of men — their ambitious, warlike, protective, possessive character — must be dismantled in order to liberate women from their domination. Machismo — the polemical description of maleness or spiritedness, which was the central natural passion in men’s souls in the psychology of the ancients, the passion of attachment and loyalty — was the villain, the source of the difference between the sexes. …With machismo discredited, the positive task is to make men caring, sensitive, even nurturing, to fit the restructured family. …
“It is indeed possible to soften men. But to make them ‘care’ is another thing, and the project must inevitably fail. It must fail because in an age of individualism, persons of either sex cannot be forced to be public-spirited, particularly by those who are becoming less so. …The old moral order, however imperfect it may have been, at least moved toward the virtues by way of the passions. If men were self-concerned, that order tried to expand the scope of self-concern to include others, rather than commanding men to cease being concerned with themselves. …
“A true political or social order requires the soul to be like a Gothic cathedral, with selfish stresses and strains helping to hold it up. {Modern ideology} condemns certain keystones, removes them, and then blames both the nature of the stones and the structure when it collapses. The failure of agriculture in socialist collective farming is the best political example of this.”
The revolution, now in its final stages, by radical feminists has created a social regime with the logic of socialist collective farming. It looks great on paper. I predict it too will collapse utterly.
The collapse has already begun, running in the usual “S” curve shape. We are in the first phase, the gentle slope during which the great and wise deny that anything is happening. Just adjustments to the new order. We see this in the many articles by women asking how to get their men to commit to marriage, and complaining that he is Peter Pan and won’t commit. We see who is adjusting, because there are few equivalent articles about women unwilling to commit to marriage.
The development of guy’s Game, Red Pill thinking, and men going their own way (MGTOW) are small phenomena — as discussed in previous posts. But they discredit the new regime and lay the foundation for the rapid spread of the insurgency in the next decade: men refusing to marry. All other aspects are minor compared to this, since marriage is a core process making our society function.
The next post will discuss how the gender wars might end.
Insights from Dalrock about modern dating
- Dating single mothers.
- Will the next generation of men marry?
- Important: Rules of the road for fornication.
- Key insight: 40 years of ultimatums lead to the revolution.
- A side-effect of girls’ Game: All the lonely feminist spinsters.
- More important: the ever-changing fine line between sluts and good girls.
- Why women consider that line important – and men draw it.
- Why Christian women aren’t getting enough dates.
- About the 80/20 college hookup ratio.
- Supply and demand in the marriage market.
- Men no longer footing the bill to court older women.
- The divine right of women to a kinder, gentler carousel.
- Women who stay on the party trail too long, missing the exit for marriage & kids.
See the other posts in this series about the counter-revolution
- The coming crash as men and women go their own way.
- MeToo discovers that there is always a counterrevolution.
- Is a return to traditional values possible?
- Society changes as men learn the Dark Triad.
- Men find individual solutions.
- Modern dating: is the only winning move is not to play?
- Red Pill knowledge is poison to marriage.
- As the Left’s social revolution wins victories, a revolt begins.
Ideas! For shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon.
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about society and gender issues, about feminism, and about marriage.
Two great books to help us understand our situation
Sex in History
Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty
.
FB:
Your discussion, in various posts, on the gender wars & their consequences has been fascinating, because it’s mostly avoided the ruts of conventional, or worse, PC (politically controlled) thinking. However, I sense an underlying assumption in it that is quite wrong, or at least, far too optimistic.
That assumption is that, after the War, life will go on. We are not talking about a struggle over transitory matters, like where borders will be draw on maps, or whose pockets will get filled with taxes & profits. This is fight over the fundamental means of social survival: how we turn this planet’s most dangerous predators into upstanding citizens. Assuming that this is still going to be accomplished, after “society settles into a new equilibrium”, is like telling a cancer patient that their body will “settle into a new equilibrium”, after the tumors are finished growing… In fact, the tumors will finish growing when the patient dies.
It may be that the post-mortem society will be sort of “social feudalism” — communities & regions of people (the Amish? Survivalists? Isolated towns or small cities? Military bases? Counties? Small States?) who maintain or recover that fundamental social viability, holding things together in a sea of casual chaos where anything goes. Anything goes, not just in terms of sex & gender, but also territory, property, safe passage, & violence. I would expect that the major metro centers will become non-viable in this scenario; they would be occupied, but at much lower population densities, much like the City of Rome after the fall of its Empire. Not gone, but shadows of their former selves. (The effect of, & on, high technology in such a social devolution is a real wild card…) In any case, it may come to pass that making a journey from what is now Florida, to what is now California, will be as fraught will risks as traveling across Europe or the Mediterranean was during the Dark Ages…
Best regards,
Jeffrey,
“In fact, the tumors will finish growing when the patient dies.”
There is no analogy to a cancer tumor here. This is a joust between elements in society, common during history. They usually evolve as thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Sometimes one side wins. Life always goes on.
I see no basis for your extreme scenarios. Time will tell which of us is right.
Continuous population growth is not sustainable I meant.
Just wow!!
You state ” The collapse has already begun, running in the usual “S” curve shape. ” and then revert to Pollyanna when a reader points out the logical implications.
Saying ” Life always goes on. ” is not a useful response. When the birth rate is well below replacement levels among all the various modern societies, it suggests modern society is exiting.
Whether the replacement culture will be feral or shuttered remains tbd, but the underlying downtrend is showing no signs of slowing and is quite resistant to efforts to reverse it, as the Japanese government has discovered. Plus even if you postulate a baby boom, that does not replenish society unless those children are effective educated, something clearly beyond the capabilities of most bureaucracies.
Imho, the burden is on you to show how modern society can continue given these trends, because the indicators disagree with you.
etudiant,
The spread of an insight does not automatically mean the end of the world. The flu spreads every year, but humanity survives.
“When the birth rate is well below replacement levels among all the various modern societies, it suggests modern society is exiting.”
Hysterical much? Getting the Earth’s population down to 1 billion would be a blessing, esp for nations like China, India, and Japan. That will take centuries. Lots of time to worry about humanity’s extinction.
“And is quite resistant to efforts to reverse it, as the Japanese government has discovered”
To be honest, the Japanese Government has done nothing serious to remedy their situation. A few flashy measures, more symbolic than anything else, when really impacting the birth rate would imply major economic and social policies (daycare, work hours, costs of living in a city….). Granting a half day’s rest per month is NOT gonna create incentives to make babies.
“Plus even if you postulate a baby boom, that does not replenish society unless those children are effective educated, something clearly beyond the capabilities of most bureaucracies.”
That is the double conundrum: boosting birth rates AND re-growing the proportion of youngsters that is “useful” (to be crass), aka educated enough (all levels of education), decently put together and fully functioning in general, if possible with a bit of social capital to start in life. I don’t know how well that sort of utilitarian measurement can be determined, but if there is a number to that regard, it has clearly be going down over the last decades. And in the context of a more or less pronounced decline in overall numbers (in absolute terms or relative to the proportion of elders). In France, things are not so bad on the numbers part (though more worrying is the proportion of useful/productive new humans entering the workforce every year), but in neighboring countries (the 3 big ones), things are quite bleak.
tancrede,
That Japan needs to boost its birthrate — and have an ever-increasing population — is quite mad. A classic example of manning the hoses as the ship sinks. Not just because it is far too crowded. But also we’re starting a new industrial revolution likely to produce massive unemployment. A shrinking but highly educated labor force is ideal for the 21st century.
A follow-up note:
Hysteria about below-replacement level fertility and humanity “exiting” is quite mad. The challenge for the remainder of the 21st century will be coping with a rising population, which is locked in due to low average age in much of the world (i.e., their population will grow even with replacement-level fertility).
The latest UN forecast gives high odds of the world population peaking at 11-12 billion late in the 21st century. With any reasonable level of economic growth and likely tech progress, the ecological consequences will be horrific. That will be true even if that forecast is 20% too high.
The challenge in the 21st century will be to get the population on course to a better level and to repair the ecosystem.
etudiant said:
Saying ” Life always goes on. ” is not a useful response. When the birth rate is well below replacement levels among all the various modern societies, it suggests modern society is exiting.
We’re a species who have survived disasters like the Black Plague, two world wars, the Flu Pandemic of 1918 (may have wiped out 3-5% of the world population), and assorted genocides/democides. They were terrible affairs for the people caught in the middle of them, but did they cause civilizational collapse? No.
I’ve seen tons of disaster porn scenarios laid out ranging from Y2K to peak oil and have been underwhelmed so far by their level of accuracy. So maybe the burden of proof is on you to show we’re headed towards Mad Max time (as opposed to just dramatic social change), not the other way around.
Ray,
That’s a less specific reply than mine — but more powerful.
Larry Kummer said:
Getting the Earth’s population down to 1 billion would be a blessing,
That’s about what we had at the beginning of the 19th century and I don’t think that’s necessary. A number of very densely populated areas also have a high standard of living, such as Hong Kong and Singapore. But it also has to be said that they’re population sinks, just like Japan is.
The bigger problem is that places where population is growing rapidly are also technologically undeveloped countries. Having them catch up to us technologically is going to be one of the major challenges of the 21st century.
Ray,
“That’s about what we had at the beginning of the 19th century and I don’t think that’s necessary.”
I didn’t say it was “necessary.” It is not “necessary.”
Before thinking about reducing the population, we have to get governments comfortable with the idea of a population that isn’t growing. That will be hard. Governments, big corporations all base their economic models on continuous population growth. It is not sustainable. They all acknowledge this, but hope the end of growth can be put off indefinitely. My country, Australia, is perhaps the worst. We’ve been continuously boosting immigration in order to maintain an absurdly high population growth rate of about 1.5%. Business leaders here mostly think this is marvelous. One of the justifications for this is that will ameliorate population aging. But if you do the demographic calculations it will do no such thing.
CSI,
That’s an important point! The response of our ruling class to slowing population growth has been open borders. In the US it suits the needs of both major political parties. The citizens, not so much. But the continuous barrage of pro-immigration propaganda has convinced most Americans that this is wonderful.
Your articles on male/female relationships completely leave out one of the most important fundamentals of interactions between men and women. Throughout history young women have painted themselves and dressed themselves in order to appear much better than they actually are, this is of course done to induce some young male cursed with sexual hormones that drive him to do irrational things, namely to buy into this scam, even though it is obviously a scam. It has always been this way, men have been sucked into doing silly things by a pretty face since time began, of course this scam does not last long and by the time a pretty young woman has turned into a saggy, annoying burden, (usually in her early 30’s) the young man has realized he was conned and wants out. Fortunately in the modern age the divorce exit is socially acceptable, although it might be expensive I have not met any man who did not think it was good value, i.e.. why is divorce so expensive ? because it is worth it ! Presenting divorce as so much in favour of the female side is contrary to my own experience and interaction with men who have been divorced…it is a wonderful alternative for most, that was not so easy for most of history.
Jim,
(1) “Your articles on male/female relationships completely leave out one of the most important fundamentals of interactions between men and women.”
Are you kidding? These are brief introduction sketches about one specific form of interaction. It “leaves out” thousands. It’s not a statement of the Cosmic All. It’s not even the Britannica entry on “Male – Female Relations.”
(2) “induce some young male cursed with sexual hormones”
Wow. Weird.
(3) “namely to buy into this scam, even though it is obviously a scam. It has always been this way”
I guess guys throughout history just were not as smart as you!
Jim,
On reflection, let me give a better answer.
“Your articles on male/female relationships completely leave out one of the most important fundamentals of interactions between men and women.”
This entire post discusses what you say was left out. See the entirety of the post starting with …
“namely to buy into this scam, even though it is obviously a scam. It has always been this way”
As I show, there were powerful incentives for men to participate in marriage. The system is called “patriarchy” for a reason.
I currently live in an area where women (white women in particular) don’t wear makeup or dress stylishly. The men still get sucked in as you say. Nothing is different. Being around women who make little or no effort to look pretty is not nearly as good as you think it is Jim. In fact I would say it makes life more dreary.
Jay,
I’ve wanted to write about that, but lack evidence. Other than what I see. The young women in colleges (gen z) are almost another species from those in the 1970s. Hair undone, little or no makeup, wearing dark drab loose clothing (dressed like ninjas). Very unisex (which was considered a utopian fantasy in the 1960s). But there is little here to interest guys.
It will be interesting to see how they dress in the world world. My guess is that they will continue to dress like guys. It will be interesting to see how they play out.
“The revolution, now in its final stages, by radical feminists has created a social regime with the logic of socialist collective farming. It looks great on paper. I predict it too will collapse utterly.”
I can’t argue. Humans respond to incentives, and we’ve changed the incentives with respect to marriage. So the behavior changes. I don’t know what the end state is going to be, but what we reward is what we’re going to get. Dalrock once referred to feminism as a gigantic pumping operation. (I can’t recall the name of the specific piece, but the phrase stuck in my mind.) It required a lot of effort and support to keep it going. That effort is hitting the limits of sustainability. Whatever replaces the current order will have to be a system that runs downhill. It has to be aligned with basic human motivations. Humans aren’t hard wired to behave the way that say, feminism and collective farming need them to behave in order for those systems to work as designed. The social engineers should heed the words of Luke Skywalker. “This isn’t going to go the way that you think.”
There is no disaster from falling birthrates in Japan because it is a country of 100 million people crammed into a very small area near the coast AND their government is NOT replacing them with foreigners. Western ‘journalists’ and demographers have been predicting doom for Japan for at least 2 decades. Having been there several times, I find no evidence for their predictions.
I am surprised by Larry’s optimism for the West. Our government is electing a new people through a combination of low native fertility (which I believe to be the prime mover) and high immigration. We will simply be replaced by Mexicans and Asians as we fight our gender wars. I will drive you through California to show you what this will look like. California youth are currently 50% Latin American, 10% Asian (Indian, Chinese, Arab, etc), 5% black, and the rest white. Asians, blacks, and Latin Americans have a very different take on what America should be though – aside from whites – each race is seeking its own advantage against the others. About the only thing this new polity can agree on is open borders and more welfare. The financial situation, if you read CAlifornia Policy Center and State Data Lab, is more akin to Syria since there are so many rich government workers and so many poor Latin Americans who live on the dole and have high fertility.
Were this replacement not underway we would have time to sort out our gender wars.
PRCD,
I agree — and have often written about — the madness of open borders. My confidence (aka faith) is two fold. First, the public is waking up to the problem. Both parties, loyal servants of the 1%, love open borders. But even in our passive state, the Republic’s political machinery remains live. A “woke” public is the 1%’s great fear, imo, and they avoid measures that severely antagonise us. Hence the slow throttling of immigration.
I see Trump as a desperation measure by America, when the preferred candidates of both parties were horrific. The choice between bad and horrible is more important than between good and better.
Second, we (unlike Europe) can assimilate people from other cultures. Slowly. And only if these social mechanisms are both put to work and not overwhelmed. Left seeks to stop the former and enthusiastically do the latter.
Time will tell how all this plays out. I can easily imagine that PRCD’s fears prove to be accurate.
Indeed, Larry. It was the Flight 93 election.
California is hopefully a problem confined to itself. Its self-inflicted financial problems share a lot in common with states like Illinois, NJ, MD, Mass which, interestingly, also have few personal liberties and poor business climate. It’s funny how these problems go hand-in-hand. Should the rest of the country go as demographically south as CA, Americans will need some sort of civil rights movement to counteract the one-party country the US will become.
“The collapse has already begun, running in the usual “S” curve shape. We are in the first phase, the gentle slope during which the great and wise deny that anything is happening. Just adjustments to the new order.”
I remain unsure, which is to say not really persuaded of this. I do see, having read a lot of the links and previous posting, that at least among a vocal minority of men, something is happening. Whether its just a vocal minority or whether its that they are articulating views which the majority holds to some degree, I find unclear.
I read the Reddit thread, and perhaps predictably found it astonishing. I thought it reflected a very negative, an unfoundedly negative, view of women amounting almost to demonization. Others may find me naive in this regard.
What would help me come properly to grips with it would be some quantitative account of what is going on. I found Dalrock’s 80/20 post on campus behavior very interesting, if inconclusive. In the end it seemed to say that we really don’t know, even in that restricted universe, what 80% are doing. People have impressions, but I thought the bottom line was no hard data.
The other thing I am missing is what women’s perspective is on this. I have read the Men on Strike book recommended and found it interesting – it was clear, forthright and very readable. But it didn’t really answer the question that has been occurring to me: how do women react to, for instance, the Reddit thread and similar expressions of attitudes to them.
Dalrock’s material on Christan commentaries is very interesting, and it is striking that a socially conservative group seems to have migrated pretty far from classic social conservativism about sex and gender. That was very surprising and real food for thought. They are to a degree a surprising and decisive indicator, you feel, if it has reached here, it has really penetrated the culture. ‘It’ being the dissolution of traditional rules and attitudes. And as Dalrock says, in pretty much flat contradiction with what used to be the theological foundations of the group.
I don’t feel clear we are in the early phase of an S shaped curve. Yes, that does sometimes happen as social revolutions develop. But a lot of the time we have a development simply giving rise to consequences in no very neat or structured fashion, and without going through extremes of one phase succeeded by a movement against. We often just muddle through adjusting course as we go.
George,
I find your inability to see what you “read” to be quite extraordinary. You don’t appear to have seen the core material in these posts. My guess is that you have heavy duty ideological blinders.
(1) “Whether its just a vocal minority or whether its that they are articulating views which the majority holds to some degree”
How odd. I state often and clearly that this is now a relatively small phenomenon.
(2) “Others may find me naive in this regard.”
No, just the usual “eyes tightly closed.” Note your inability to even acknowledge the facts given in these posts. Your comment just dismiss everything as CrimeThink. Excellent indoctrination.
(3) “would be some quantitative account of what is going on.”
As I and Dalrock have both stated often and clearly, the marriage and divorce data is the key. That you don’t see what we say is impressive.
(4) “The other thing I am missing is what women’s perspective is on this.”
That’s because you don’t see what you read. As described in these posts, women’s major reactions have been
(a) To criticize men’s refusal to marry (so far a small phenomenon) as immaturity, exploitive, and “the peter pan syndrome.”
(b) The large literature about how to get men to commit.
(c) To justify or embrace their inability to marry as a lifestyle.
(d) Single motherhood.
We will see how the women in gen Y and Z react if men have a large-scale reaction to the institutional changes of the past two generations.
(5) “I don’t feel clear we are in the early phase of an S shaped curve.”
How could you? You give little evidence of seeing what you read if it doesn’t fit your preconceptions.
The 80/20 rule has to do with attraction, not necessarily sex. This has been demonstrated with big data at OKCupid a few years ago
https://theblog.okcupid.com/your-looks-and-your-inbox-8715c0f1561e
and also at Tindr more recently
https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a
In any given social circle, 80% of the women will be attracted to 20% of the men. This is hypergamy in action. Since social media extends the “social circle” further out than ever before, it means that women’s hypergamous desires can expand nearly without bound. Again, this does not mean that 80% of the women are having sex with 20% of the men, but they want to. This is part of the issue of “settling” that affects marriage stability for the average Beta man, and this is why every man who plans to marry must acquire some realistic views about women, plus “woman management” skills: every man needs some degree of Game.
The other thing I am missing is what women’s perspective is on this.
They don’t care. Really, they don’t. Partly because women in the West are more catered to than any other group of people since the French aristocrats of the 18th century, partly because they’re women and it’s just not within their scope.
With a search engine many of your questions can be answered.
I’m also not clear what the ‘game’ is. Haven’t read the book that apparently is its foundation. But what I read here and elsewhere suggests its very traditional, seducer’s manual, of the sort you find in Laclos or Stendhal. Just as much of the red pill material I read strikes me as old fashioned misogyny in new clothes.
Both Stendhal and Flaubert by the way are better guides to social change than Hegel…. You will differ, I think. Often however novelists tell us more, and with more insight, than philosophers. On social matters.
George,
(1) “I’m also not clear what the ‘game’ is.”
Obviously. But that doesn’t stop you from talking about it.
(2) “Just as much of the red pill material I read strikes me as old fashioned misogyny in new clothes.”
As you have shown here, you read things and smash them to fit into your ideological preconceptions.
(3) “Haven’t read the book that apparently is its foundation”
There is no such book. It has evolved since its origins generations ago.
(4) “its very traditional, seducer’s manual”
Wrong.
(5) “You will differ, I think.”
Wrong, again. Hegel has useful insights, mostly methodological, but is not a particularly useful guide to the future.
George said: Both Stendhal and Flaubert by the way are better guides to social change than Hegel…. You will differ, I think.
I read Flaubert’s Madame Bovary and cannot imagine a clearer picture of Red Pill thinking. Madame Bovary is a vain, silly woman who gets caught up in affairs with men who use her like Kleenex. In the meantime, her beta husband is utterly clueless until it’s too late. He’s hopelessly in love with her, but she neglects and despises him.
Just as much of the red pill material I read strikes me as old fashioned misogyny in new clothes.
Or simply accurate observations of human nature. A lot of other writers and philosophers from previous eras made statements about women that weren’t especially flattering. Perhaps they were simply telling it like it is.
Ray,
Wow. That’s a brilliant literary observation. I consider M. Bovary a great work, but didn’t make that connection. Thanks for posting it.
Ray,
I posted a comment at Dalrock’s with your observation. I said it was from here, by “Ray.”
That’s an insight worth mining. Any more examples from literature of modern-type women and men? No behavior is new. Just the frequencies, magnitudes, and combinations change to make the pageant of history.
Ray,
I posted a comment at Dalrock’s with your observation. I said it was from here, by “Ray.”
Thank you Larry. I post at Dalrock’s too on occasion.
That’s an insight worth mining. Any more examples from literature of modern-type women and men?
Madame Bovary is by far the best I’ve seen and I confess I haven’t read too many other “classics” that describe female behavior so accurately. The Wife of Bath story in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales gives an idea of what women will do absent external restraints.
Wikipedia has a list of articles of novels where adultery takes place and it might be worth pursuing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Adultery_in_novels. If you have the stomach, romance novels give a glimpse of what gets women’s juices flowing. They make up an estimated 34% of fiction sales with an 84% female readership.
https://www.rwa.org/page/romance-industry-statistic
No behavior is new. Just the frequencies, magnitudes, and combinations change to make the pageant of history.
Correct. I believe that social customs go a long way in masking the negative aspects of female behavior and older cultures evolved them for that reason. An example is the dowry, which served as an incentive to prevent women from flaking on their marital obligations.
Ray,
When snowed in at a Girl Scout camp for a week (with a Boy Scout troop, no girls), I skimmed thru their large stash of Harlequin novels. That whet my interest, and I’ve skimmed thru my wife’s collection. They can be skimmed in minutes, and are quite enlightening about what women 16-50 want. Romance. Adventure. A genre for single mothers and divorced women. I urge all guys to read them. Personally, I found the Regeancy genre the most entertaining. But 35% of all fiction sales!
Re: adultery
I strongly recommend reading Love and Friendship
by Allan Bloom. His chapter about Madame Bovary made me re-read the book, seeing it in a new way. Excerpt.
Imagine being in an undergrad class taught by Bloom AND Saul Bellow! This comment alone is worth an essay. Esp on why adultery was such a big thing in 19c novels, how that foreshadowed developments being fully realized now, 150 years later.
” I believe that social customs go a long way in masking the negative aspects of female behavior”
And male behavior. Western social dynamics employed the basic drives of both men and women to build marriages, building on low but solid ground. Now we’ve destroyed all that, hoping for higher — probably imaginary — drives to replace those in men. My bet is that the institution is running on momentum. Eventually men will see the new cost-benefit-risk dynamics, and reduce their participation. At some point that will collapse the institution, and force change.
Of course, there are no guarantees that the replacement will work as well as what we destroyed.
Larry Kummer said:
When snowed in at a Girl Scout camp for a week (with a Boy Scout troop, no girls), I skimmed thru their large stash of Harlequin novels.
I’ve done something similar, but with the Sweet Valley High teen romances.
Romance. Adventure. A genre for single mothers and divorced women. I urge all guys to read them. Personally, I found the Regeancy genre the most entertaining. But 35% of all fiction sales!
Warren Farrell considered the number of women reading romance novels the real women’s movement in his book “Why Men Are The Way They Are” (1986). He also had the percentage of female readers as much higher (98-99% based on an article on reader demographics). I’m not sure of the reason for the difference, but suspect it’s tied in to the rise in digital media.
I strongly recommend reading Love and Friendship by Allan Bloom.
I just ordered a copy myself.
Western social dynamics employed the basic drives of both men and women to build marriages, building on low but solid ground. Now we’ve destroyed all that, hoping for higher — probably imaginary — drives to replace those in men.
I see you’ve noticed how one-sided the whole deal is. Dalrock has too many posts to count about “Christian” and other moral authorities who demand that men “man-up” and take one for the team. What’s always missing is why they should have any incentive to do so.
What will replace it? Who knows. I see technology working inexorably to outsource women’s primary functions (sex and reproduction). Previous societies have used women to rope in men and motivate them. But if they’re no longer useful for that role the gynocentrism that we see today is likely to be greatly reduced, or even disappear entirely.
RAY,
“I see you’ve noticed how one-sided the whole deal is.”
This is the 9th post in a series describing the consequences of that change in marriage.
Due to a WordPress system problem, a batch of comments were lost in the trash, including this one.
Larry,
“Life always goes on”, but societies do not always go on. The planet is literally littered with the ruins of their deaths. By the 1400’s, Chinese society was clearly ahead of the rest of the world. Then they believed a lie: all that China needs is China. By the 1800’s, their society was so decrepit & dysfunctional that the European colonial powers were able to divvy up China like a pie, with scarcely any resistance. Now, it is the Europeans whose societies are decrepit & dysfunctional because they have believed a lie: all that people need is material power. Now Europeans can’t muster the ambition to make enough babies to replace their dying; where are they going to find the wherewithal to resist Islamic dominion by the Muslims they are importing to replace the babies they can’t be bothered to have?
I increasingly believe that our path will not follow the Hollywood apocalypse script, where there is a day that everyone knows, when the World As We Know It ended. I suspect it will be more & more things like the Flint, Michigan water fiasco, or the arming of teachers & staff in government schools. Evidence of systemic dysfunction that will each be treated as regrettable, but isolated, problems. I see us continuing down this path unless & until we let go of the lies we like to believe:
– That life is just a happy accident which death completely ends.
– That transcendent truths are just illusions constructed to prop up social cohesion.
– That getting the power to live the life I want now is all that really matters.
– That government can save us from ourselves.
A society that believes those lies will produce lots of beta (& omega) males, invincibly discontented women, & perpetual adolescents. It will not generate enough husbands/fathers, wives/mothers, or good citizens generally, to keep itself going. Going forward, the viable social networks will be the ones where people rediscover the self-evident truths:
– That we are created.
– That truth is discoverable, not arbitrary.
– That our Creator gives us human rights & imposes on us moral responsibilities.
– That government is a necessary evil that must be carefully constrained.
Best regards,
“As I and Dalrock have both stated often and clearly, the marriage and divorce data is the key. That you don’t see what we say is impressive.”
I think I do see, at least I see the numbers and the testimony. I have reviewed your posts, and I have gone on to read the books and articles you have pointed to. I agree that the numbers are significant, and the trend very clear, and the testimony suggestive.
I’m just not as clear as you are that I understand what it means, still less what it is going to lead to. I am not saying that your account of what it means is wrong. I am just saying I do not yet share it.
On women’s perspective, yes, I have read the material you have pointed to. Its suggestive that something is happening, and when taken with the material on divorce and marriage statistics, is certainly food for thought.
The thing that I would be interested in reading, and have not found so far, is something a bit different – its a woman’s reaction to the Reddit thread for instance, or to the concept of the red pill. Not so much a woman’s reaction to the social environment as experienced by her and her friends, or her advocacy about how to act. But her reaction to the account of the social environment as experienced by men, and as reported by you, Dalrock and in the Reddit thread.
I think you recommended ‘Men on Strike’, and that was very thought provoking and in some places wickedly funny. But it too is about the social environment. What I’d like to see is a woman’s personal reaction to the material on here and on Dalrock or Reddit. I haven’t found that yet.
I have to say that more here than on any other forum, I have found a mother lode of interesting and thought provoking material to read, in the way of references, that I would probably not have come on, otherwise. Interestingly some of it (like Bloom) is from a previous era, and re-read in the light of developments it is even more interesting than it was when first read. Thank you for this. The amount of material is probably why I am slow to make up my mind.
By the way – not on the present subject, but Tannahill’s book on food is another fascinating and literate journey through culture and history. Recommended.
George,
First you misrepresented what I said. Then you backtracked on those claims (without acknowledging doing so), and demonstrated that you had not seen what I said. Now you change your stance again, but without acknowledging it. I suggest that rather than critique this material, you first work on taking off those blinders. Only then will you have anything useful to say.
(1) “I think I do see, at least I see the numbers and the testimony.”
Your comments were quite explicit that you did not see the numbers. You never mentioned them. You said it would be nice to see “some quantitative account of what is going on.”
(2) “On women’s perspective, yes, I have read the material you have pointed to.”
Your comments were quite explicit that you did not see the material shown about women’s perspective: “The other thing I am missing is what women’s perspective is on this.”
Larry,
“Life always goes on”, but societies do not. The planet is literally littered with the ruins of societies that failed to go on. In the 1400’s, Chinese society was the most advanced in the world, but they bought into the lie that all that China needed was China. By the 1800’s, China was so decrepit & dysfunctional that the European colonial powers were able to divvy it up with hardly a fight. Now it is the Europeans who have bought into a lie — that all that they needed was material prosperity & peace. And now they can’t even muster the will to make enough babies to replace their dying. Where will they find the wherewithal to resist Islamic dominion by the Muslims they are importing to replace the babies they couldn’t be bothered to have. America is sliding down that same road.
However, I’m increasingly of the mind that we won’t follow the Hollywood apocalypse script, where the survivors can recall a catastrophic day on which the World As We Know It ended. I suspect that there will gradually be more things like the Flint, Michigan water fiasco, more changes like arming school teachers & staff. Each of which will be treated as regrettable, but isolated problems. But the tide of chaos will keep inching upwards. Most people will see no basis for worrying about “extreme scenarios”.
Jeff,
“Life always goes on”, but societies do not”
I’ve never understood why people point this out. It’s an operationally useless insight.
As for the rest, we should charge doomsters for the right to publish their forecasts. At even a modest rate it would eliminate the Federal deficit.
Larry,
Pointing out that the social operating systems (like the family) are not as changeable as technical operating systems (like in this laptop), is hardly “doom casting”. Perhaps the most toxic component of the Progressive Kool-Aid that we’ve all been swilling, is the conceit that human societies are as upgradable as technical systems. It is a seductive idea — I fully understand why you are reluctant to let it go.
As for “operationally useless insights” would you suggest that warning teen drivers that cars can crash, with horrific consequences, is an “operationally useless insight”? Or is it simply reasonable to provide precautions & training to people whose enthusiasm exceeds their competence?
Jeff,
Doomsayers of the past half century or so have a uniformly terrible track record. Remember Paul Ehrlich’s book “The Population Bomb”?
Or is it simply reasonable to provide precautions & training to people whose enthusiasm exceeds their competence?
Invalid comparison, since we know how to train teens to become competent drivers. Some still get into accidents despite our best efforts, but we deal with it on a case-by-case basis. Worrywart hand-wringing about it is an exercise best left for their mothers.
Pingback: Stepping away for a bit. | Dalrock
Larry,
The stats I have seen are those on marriage and divorce. The stats I would like to see, but have only come on partial glimpses, are on other issues in the area. Dalrock for instance has an interesting post about the 80/20 possibility on campuses. I think he concluded that we really do not know what the less visible 80% are doing. We know that 20% are having lots of sex. But what about the others, men and women? Is it actually the case that 20% of men are having lots of sex with lots of women, and 80% are more or less celibate? Don’t know.
I’m not sure about cohabitation either. I wonder whether what is happening is, in addition to people not marrying, or marrying later, is there a phenomenon where they do everything else as they used to but just don’t go through the ceremony? I looked up some European stats and came to the conclusion that in Germany and France this may be part of what is happening but don’t feel confident about it, or how much of the explanation it may be.
I think I accept your account in part. I see that what you describe as the lower part of the S curve is real and happening. The evidence leaves little room for doubt. How gig it is now, and whether its going to move into the steep climb I don’t feel at all confident in judging. I start from a position of skepticism, but ready to be persuaded by observation.
The women’s voices I would like to hear are on a different topic. Yes, I have seen the voices you and Dalrock point to. What I would like is direct personal reactions to such things as the Reddit posts you linked to. What do ‘women like me’ think and how do they react to male voices saying these things and reporting these experiences of women? What do they think when they read Dalrock or your own gender series?
‘women like me’ – I am male, I mean, women of the same background, women who I suspect are as puzzled as I am about all this. I am not, at least not to my knowlege, in the least what is called ‘alpha’ in these contexts, by the way.
My own experience has been mixed. I have met on a couple of occasions with the behaviors described in the Reddit thread. It was very damaging and had long term very bad effects on me. But looking back, now quite close to the end of my life, I have more often been surprised and grateful for women’s generosity and affection.
I look forward to your next post in the series with interest.
Patriarchy appears to be a system that elevates general male status and help to fulfill the hypergamous instincts of the female sex. It also appears to prompt much greater paternal investment through fulfilling the male dominance instinct and legitimacy of children:
https://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html
Hypergamy of course originally evolved to ensure that the best males are selected for breeding. However as a result this social technology is made viable due to the unique circumstances humans evolved in.
The “male dominance instinct” beyond a small subset of sociopathic males is a feminist fiction.
Madame Bovary is indeed an extraordinary achievement. Like the Education Sentimentale it is a sort of goldmine of how to achieve certain effects. The scene in the cattle market for instance is genius of a certain kind. Or the final page with the account of Charles’ death. When I re-read these passages, and the many more like them, my hair stands on end. I feel at the same time awed by the mastery, wanting to make notes on exactly how he did it… but also slightly saddened by the contrast between the genius of the expression and the banality of what is being expressed. Yes, it is indeed classic red pill stuff, though of all his characters, I think he has most insight and regard for Emma. In spite of himself perhaps!
‘He stood off from life as if it were leprosy’. Its not all you want to say, but there is a lot of truth in that.
Stendhal is quite a different matter, sardonic, furious energy, very penetrating.
Jules et Jim (the novel more than the film) is an interesting example, and QD Leavis has a very interesting essay on it in the collected essays. She was a feminist of a sort that has no time for contemporary feminism, and her remarks on the character played by Jeanne Moreau in the film are very penetrating.
“As for the rest, we should charge doomsters for the right to publish their forecasts. At even a modest rate it would eliminate the Federal deficit.”
LOL….you post previous to this one was titled: “The Middle East is doomed”
Vektor,
It was a semi-humorous title to grab attention. The article does not say that the ME is doomed.
Emma said: I can look at any set of crime statistics and use the same manner of broad generalizations you’ve just used and reasonably conclude that a society without men or fewer men would be overhwelmingly non-violent.
A society without men wouldn’t be able to get anything done. If you want a birds-eye view of how feckless and helpless all-female groups are, please click the links below.
“THIS ACCIDENTAL EXPERIMENT SHOWS THE SUPERIORITY OF PATRIARCHY” by NOMEN NESCIO, 5 APRI 2014.
“Reality television reveals the difference between men and women” at Jim’s Blog.
Ray,
I would like to see more hard data about those shows. There were two seasons (2 and 3) with male vs. female islands. These tell us nothing. Nothing whatsoever.
The reports about #2 vary. The reports I see in the major media say that both did well. “Bear Grylls’ island: are the women tougher than the men?” in The Telegraph. “Bear Grylls: The Island women had it tougher than the men” in the Irish Examiner.
The third season featured the same scenario, different people. Lots of articles about how the women did better. “The outrageous sexism on The Island with Bear Grylls might be what makes it a great show” in The New Statesman. “The Island with Bear Grylls: The sexist men are seriously embarrassing themselves” in Digital Spy — “The women have already shown them up in so many ways.”
I believe the conclusion is obvious, esp to anyone with Scouting experience — performance of small groups depends almost totally on the mix of skills and personalities in the group. As usual in these things, variation within the group is much larger than between the groups (i.e., between men and women). Many such experiments would be needed to get useful data on relative performance of men vs. women.
One or two seasons tell us nothing. Esp given the ability of the producers to “stack the deck” by selection of the teams. One experienced leader with outdoor experience can determine the outcome, as appears to have happened in season 3 on the women’s team.
Larry Kummer said:
I would like to see more hard data about those shows.
Here’s some real world data: the conspicuous lack of all-female exploratory missions or all-female enclaves.
Nunneries use male staff to maintain them, but monasteries have no such need. That tells me that men can get along without women (leaving reproduction aside), but women cannot get along without men.
The reports about #2 vary. The reports I see in the major media say that both did well.
I call it spin control, sort of like what the military does when it wants to graduate women from Army Ranger school. For balance, you might try looking at some of the comments on Youtube. I saw an awful lot of pointing and laughing.
The third season featured the same scenario, different people. Lots of articles about how the women did better
I didn’t watch the third season yet. But I looked at the description and the premise is different from the previous season. The men and women are separate, but are on the same island and come together. In season 2 they were on separate islands. Once men and women come together, it’s not a comparable ball game anymore.
In the Island 2, the men killed a caiman (a very dangerous animal), built raised beds, pulled in a huge fish dinner with a net one of the men spent all day untangling, They made mistakes, but learned from them.
The women got lost on an island you can walk across, and their hunting abilities ended with them taming some baby pigs and (tearfully) cutting their throats. They seemed to be unable to coordinate and follow through with a plan, or do anything without consensus.
As usual in these things, variation within the group is much larger than between the groups (i.e., between men and women).
Sorry, but I seriously doubt that is true. The dynamics at a group level that I saw between the men and the women were just too great to ignore.
One or two seasons tell us nothing. Esp given the ability of the producers to “stack the deck” by selection of the teams.
If anything, the deck seemed to be stacked in favor of women. The mysteriously reappearing watering container (the women had thrown it away after the pig meat in it got rancid) the regenerating fire equipment, and the baby pigs (as opposed to a dangerous adult boar or a croc) all point to that.
One experienced leader with outdoor experience can determine the outcome, as appears to have happened in season 3 on the women’s team.
I’ll have to watch some episodes. Again, it’s my contention that once men and women come together, it changes the whole dynamic.
Ray,
(1) “I call it spin control”
In the absence of supporting evidence, that’s just your bias at work. Your comments are themselves an extreme form of spin.
(2) “Once men and women come together, it’s not a comparable ball game anymore.”
Read the summaries about the two groups’ performance before they came together. If you’re just going to disregard everything that doesn’t suit your narrative, why bother with this exercise?
(3) “Sorry, but I seriously doubt that is true.”
It’s a fundamental rule in sociology.
(4) “The dynamics at a group level that I saw between the men and the women were just too great to ignore.”
You are displaying an extreme form of “single study syndrome.” It was one test. Groups vary fantastically in performance based on their composition. Most especially, group performance varies by the leader. A competent leader can produce drastically different outcomes from the same group. Italian soldiers were considered of low effectiveness in WWII. Rommell led them to crushing victories over the Brits.
(4) “The mysteriously reappearing watering container ”
It did not “mysteriously” do anything. One of the staff suggested that they retrieve it. Talk about spin. Heal thyself!
Larry Kummer said:
In the absence of supporting evidence, that’s just your bias at work.
The weight of human history does seem to be on my side, in spite of my bias. You see a record of men exploring and innovating, and women following later. Never the other way around. Charles Murray’s “Human Accomplishment” lays this out very plainly.
What’s more, I see a long historical record of men working together as integrated, high-performance teams, not women. I strongly believe that’s due to the harsh process of natural selection that shaped men as hunters, fighters, and trackers, while women acted as child-carers, nurturers, and supporters.
Read the summaries about the two groups’ performance before they came together.
I’ll do it when I can find the time. BTW, I looked at series 3 – they come together in episode 2. With all due respect, that’s not very much time apart.
You are displaying an extreme form of “single study syndrome.”
I actually mentioned two “studies”. Since Reality TV is a fairly new genre, we haven’t yet accumulated a huge number of examples yet, which is hardly my fault. I have seen enough of the dynamics of female majority workplaces to get a sense of deja vu when I watched the videos.
Groups vary fantastically in performance based on their composition. Most especially, group performance varies by the leader. A competent leader can produce drastically different outcomes from the same group. Italian soldiers were considered of low effectiveness in WWII. Rommell led them to crushing victories over the Brits.
True. What percentages of the platoons were women or had women as leaders?
(concerning the watering container)
It did not “mysteriously” do anything.
One of the staff suggested that they retrieve it.
Interesting how the women needed that suggestion to do something that I would think is fairly obvious.
Talk about spin. Heal thyself!
Well, sorry, but the other evidence that the women got some discreet aid that the men didn’t get (or need) may have colored my perceptions. Are you sure the container was in the exact same location where they had left it? Or if it was, that they got no assistance in locating and retrieving it? I’m not.
You wanted a woman’s voice…well you have one.
I think there are many socio-economic factors that have been at work which can’t be left out of the discussion. Given what’s turned into a boom/bust economy built on rampant speculation, outsourcing, and financialization by big banks and others, it is difficult to have a family on less than 2 incomes. Granted with a high paying enough job it can be done that or skimping on essentials. How do you explain this? And who do you think is responsible?
It’s also questionable to categorize all women (and men) as filling this mold. In addition it is easy to say that women “Patriarchy was the reward for men joining the rat race. In exchange women got security, family, and children.” I can look at any set of crime statistics and use the same manner of broad generalizations you’ve just used and reasonably conclude that a society without men or fewer men would be overhwelmingly non-violent.
The flip side is also true regarding what women got and didn’t get in the institution of marriage. Women were entirely dependent on their husbands for, well, everything, it was either difficult or impossible to disolve a marriage that may have involved abuse and adultery by the husband, and women were oftentimes not given any opportunity by which to develop their own abilities or skills (except for the ultra rich and nobility where upper class women has some options for at least a humanities and classical education). Domestic abuse and violence against women were far higher as you should know. It’s no wonder many women chose to try the fortunes in the working world.
For all the discussions here about how welfare broke down the family and certain groups of people, you’re essentially advocating for women being on a sort of permanent state of welfare to their male overlords.
American capitalists and business people made choices that helped create the system of first marketing to women and also promoting their place in the workplace…aside from whatever independent desires that some women had to do things and be able to stand on their own two feet.
None of this is to advocate for double standards or privileges. I even reject contemporary 3rd wave feminism because as far as I’m concerned equality before the law was achieved a while back and these fanatics argue for exactly that, privilege. I also reject the over the top masculinized portrayals I see in hollywood.
I read much of your logic here as it pertains to foreign policy and see the wisdom in avoiding all or nothing false dichotomies. However the suggestion that all women believe and have this radical feminist agenda is one such false choice and generalization. I think this is just all an agenda the left is using, much as it does in blaming all problems on white men with race, and I’d urge you to differentiate between small cadres of institutionally funded radicals who constantly agitate and the average person who struggles to find companionship and love in a world that’s commodified almost everything and a culture of rapidly decreasing social skills.
Emma,
Thank you for your detailed reply. However, I wonder if you reads this series of posts. You don’t mention anything I say, ignore things I frequently mention, and give rebuttals to things I don’t say.
(1) “I think there are many socio-economic factors that have been at work which can’t be left out of the discussion.”
These posts repeatedly state that the current situation results from technological and social evolution. This series isn’t a book describing the entire situation, it is a focused introduction to one subject: men’s reaction to the current situation.
(2) “It’s also questionable to categorize all women (and men)”
Everybody knows that when we speak of “women” and “men” we are generalizing – not making statements that apply to every single individual. That kind of academic rigor makes text turgid – and unreadable by most people.
(3) “The flip side is also true regarding what women got and didn’t get in the institution of marriage.”
First, that is repeatedly mentioned in this series. Second, the history is irrelevant. Young men and women are making decisions based on their circumstances, not on the basis of history lessons.
(4) “For all the discussions here about how welfare broke down the family”
What is this “all the discussion” about welfare in these posts. It’s not mentioned.
(5) “you’re essentially advocating for women being on a sort of permanent state of welfare to their male overlords.”
Now you’re just making stuff up. You are either lying – or did not read the posts, so you imagine what you think they must have said.
The worst case is worse than you think.
The UN population estimates are a fantasy that assume the current trends will continue. Simply put, we will not be able to feed that many people. Now I think it may be possible to, but the current system as it is will not allow agriculture to adapt enough to produce that much.
Look into Calhoun’s mice for how population crashes occur in social species. We can’t just slowly dwindle our population. Social collapse won’t just result in changes to our culture. Once we hit social saturation it triggers changes that lead to population crashes which the group cannot pull out of. Virtually total societal death. Some people may be around, but things will be so bad it will look nothing like what came before.
And the trigger will be hit while things still seem to be good. Once it is obvious the population is in danger of a crash, it is too late to pull out of it.
Normally this wouldn’t be a big deal as the effects localize to one country/culture/civilization. But our civilization has both globalism and is dependent for its base survival on a complex industrial system. If that system collapses it is back to the iron age for us.
For a taste of this, read the eye witness accounts of Rome’s fall from glory. And then realize that when our civilization falls it won’t just be commerce and military strength that fails; but our very ability to survive (feed ourselves, heat our homes, communicate, etc). We’ve become too advanced in all of our basic operations.
The only way to avoid this at some level will be to re-localize and encourage subcultures; particularly ones that emphasis big families, patriarchy, and mutual support.
Gary,
(1) “The UN population estimates are a fantasy that assume the current trends will continue. Simply put, we will not be able to feed that many people.”
They are not a “fantasy.” Don’t assume they experts doing these things are fools. They clearly state that this is a probabilistic forecast based solely on trends. It does not consider external factors, such as ability to feed. More importantly, they assume that fertility in Africa will not follow the pattern seen everywhere else — and decline with development. That makes that a kind of worst-case scenario. I discuss it in this post.
(2) “Look into Calhoun’s mice for how population crashes occur in social species.”
Those mice experiments show the effect of overcrowding (see Wikipedia). Other than a few areas, that will not be a factor in even a world with 10 or 12 billion people. It’s a big world.
(3) “We can’t just slowly dwindle our population.”
Got to love doomsters! They see everything as a disaster. They’re confident despite their consistent record of failed predictions. As I wrote here, Doomsters warned of End Times from overpopulation. Now *fewer* people are disastrous.
Yes overcrowding. You think it a coincidence cities are population sinks even today? But not just overcrowding, it was saturation of social interactions.
That we are increasingly urban is bad enough, but social media saturates everyone’s social interactions. We’ve even seen cases of social media addicts allowing their children to starve.
Any population projections that don’t take into account food production capacity are defacto fantasy. There is no more base requirement for a population. We will not be able to feed the projected population.
But we are already seeing social signs that mirror those Calhoun found so it is likely the limiting factor will be social space, not food.
Gary,
Your speculation is interesting, but provides zero support for your confident forecasts of doom. It’s too off-topic to debate. Time will tell if you are correct.
“Any population projections that don’t take into account food production capacity are defacto fantasy.”
So those scientists just aren’t as smart as you! Nice to know.
Gary Eden said:
Yes overcrowding. You think it a coincidence cities are population sinks even today?
Large premodern cities were usually population sinks too. We still managed to make it into the 21st century.
We will not be able to feed the projected population.
Why then has the percentage population worldwide engaging in farming continued to shrink? In the US farmers are about 2% of the population. So even with existing technology, there’s a ton of room for improvement.
But we are already seeing social signs that mirror those Calhoun found
The article below pointed out a design flaw in Calhoun’s experiment. Specifically, each apartment had only one entry and exit, which made it easy for aggressive males to guard. Anyway, I wouldn’t place too much stock in scaling up behavior from a mouse enclosure to a worldwide civilization.
https://io9.gizmodo.com/how-rats-turned-their-private-paradise-into-a-terrifyin-1687584457
There seems to be an assumption baked into doomer prophecies that society, technology, and the economy are fragile things that can easily be broken. I don’t see a whole lot of evidence for it though – things that need robust design are usually designed that way. For example, the US power grid has a tremendous amount of redundancy
Ray,
Thank you for taking the effort to debunk this particular doomster scenario. My experience with scores of such conversations is that doomsterism is a frame of mind — so it will have zero effect on the recipient.
“There seems to be an assumption baked into doomer prophecies that society, technology, and the economy are fragile things that can easily be broken.”
As usual, you go to the heart of the matter. That nails it, perfectly. That is a bizarrely false belief. As so many have discovered. The Y2K doomsters, those who believed bombing would collapse Germany’s society, and countless revolutionaries (“one good push and the rotten structure will collapse”).
Larry, appeals to authority is a logical fallacy and in this case a particularly inept one. It is patently obvious on its face that any population projection that does not take into account biological carrying capacity is meaningless.
Ray, technology and economics have resulted in us to continually shrinking the % of the population engaged in farming. But that has no bearing on food production capacity. To the contrary, large scale farming is LESS productive than medium scale farming and our current economic system guarentees that the trends of consolidation will continue.
Doomers are always wrong, until the day their not.
Gary,
It’s pretty obvious that you don’t know how population projections are made or used, and have fantastic self-esteem. Congrats.
Gary Eden said:
It is patently obvious on its face that any population projection that does not take into account biological carrying capacity is meaningless.
Since humans are a sentient, tool-using species, “biological carrying capacity” grows with technology. This is exactly what we’ve seen for centuries – technology-driven population growth.
Ray, technology and economics have resulted in us to continually shrinking the % of the population engaged in farming. But that has no bearing on food production capacity.
Nonsense. Technological aids such as fertilizer, pesticides, genetically engineered crops, and hydroponics can vastly increase yields per acre. Artificially increasing the surface area available by going vertical is another possibility, although I’m not sure it’s generally accepted yet as a method of improving productivity.
To the contrary, large scale farming is LESS productive than medium scale farming and our current economic system guarentees that the trends of consolidation will continue.
Your source for that assertion?
Doomers are always wrong,
Their track record of prediction is uniformly terrible and they cluck exactly the same way you and every other Chicken Little does. So why should I listen to either them or you?
until the day their not.
I’ve heard many hundreds of millions of years in the future, our planet may become uninhabitable. But I’m mostly interested in shorter-term predictions.
Ray,
Again you tackle what I should, but didn’t have the willpower to do. Thanks!
To add to your comment — probabilistic projections are useful because they provide a common basis for much more complex analysis adding social and technological factors. They provide a common tune for others to play to.
They are the most often cited forecasts since projections using additional factors tend to be similar over short time horizons (one or two generations) — and more wrong over longer time horizons. Tech, natural disasters (eg, plagues), and social events (wars, sudden large changes in fertility, drastic changes in govt policy) — these are all big factors but almost impossible to accurately predict over long time horizons.
This is frequently stated in articles about demography, but unknown to people who talk about demography without knowing anything about it
Larry Kummer wrote:
Again you tackle what I should, but didn’t have the willpower to do. Thanks!
You’re welcome Larry. I can be a glutton for punishment though.
They are the most often cited forecasts since projections using additional factors tend to be similar over short time horizons (one or two generations) — and more wrong over longer time horizons.
They usually suffer from not taking into account technological advances or social/economic responses to change sufficiently. I wouldn’t write the people off who make them as fools though. The trends they forecast can be useful in establishing a rough baseline of what tomorrow will bring.
Tech, natural disasters (eg, plagues), and social events (wars, sudden large changes in fertility, drastic changes in govt policy) — these are all big factors but almost impossible to accurately predict over long time horizons.
They’re also known as black swan events – impossible to predict, although they may be considered as “obvious” in hindsight.
Ray,
“They usually suffer from not taking into account technological advances or social/economic responses to change sufficiently”
I disagree. Sometimes they overestimate both. Sometimes they underestimate both. Sometimes they wrongly estimate both (i.e., life goes in unexpected directions). We’re not very good at predicting the future of the world.
“They’re also known as black swan events”
I’m not fond of that concept (or Taleb). It’s catchy, and so wildly overused. In this case, it is not appropriate. Most of the events that make projections wrong are well understood, but not predictable. They are not “black swans.” People don’t look at the Black Plague and say it was predictable or obviously due then and there in hindsight.
Larry Kummer said:
I disagree. Sometimes they overestimate both. Sometimes they underestimate both.
Sometimes. I remember pouring cold water on one commenter’s anticipation of a techno-utopia by pointing out that00000 technologies such as energy production and spaceflight have lagged well behind computing. More often I saw no anticipation of technological change at all. The common denominator to me seems to be they only are willing to consider a few (or maybe one) variable in their predictions.
(concerning Black Swan events)
I’m not fond of that concept (or Taleb). It’s catchy, and so wildly overused. In this case, it is not appropriate.
Fair enough. I should distinguish between random events or disasters and well-known trends that converge together in unexpected ways.
Larry Kummer
Swift is an extreme example of today’s young women. They ride the alpha carousel, surrounded by beta orbiters (their followers on social media and those they have friend zoned). They assume the betas like the abuse, since they are so eager for more. This is the end of the process begun with women’s liberation from the patriarchy
Taylor Swift is not an extreme example. She’s actually pretty typical of a large swath of women in the 18 – 30 cohort. This can be verified by just observing any college town bar scene, especially near a big school. Do a YouTube serch on “East sixth street girls” (Austin, Texas: Univ. of Tex.) and pay attention to what you see. These are some of the mothers of tomorrow….
This is not the end state of the process. It may only be somewhere in the middle. Millennials already are demonstrating that “open” marriage or at least half-open marriage (women cheats) is not really a problem to them. Taylor Swift
Open hypergamy, “Alpha F###s, Beta Bucks” giving way to AF-Beta Cucks is already percolating through the culture. Overt matrilineal? Maybe. Overt matriarchy? Posslble.
The end state might look something like the “walking marriage” of the Mosuo. Unlikely, but not impossible.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Mosuo
We can’t know the end state, but we can look at the true, feral, nature of women and speculate.
What do women want? MORE! More fried ice!
Anon Reader
“Taylor Swift is not an extreme example. She’s actually pretty typical”
As an old Boomer, I find it difficult to adjust to this new era. No matter how bad I think it is, it is worse.
“This is not the end state of the process.”
Yes, that’s certainly worse.
“What do women want? MORE! More fried ice!”
The counter-revolution has begun. My guess is that it will be an “S” curve. If so, the future will be far different than expected by the feminists celebrating victory.
You Americans think things were better before, but to outsiders it was always apparent that your women and enablers were pushing for this. In cinema it was about strong independent women from earliest Hollywood days and look at the lives of the old stars – lesbians, serial divorce, hinted at in 1930s movies even – these are the days you want to reclaim?
‘Closing of the Amerkan Mind’? nonsense, it was always open to this. You did this to the world, it has been a steady rise over a century. You are fooling yourselves that there is some way back on the slippery slope. This was programmed into your foundations. No such thing as an American conservative unless you renounce your foundations.
Dawkin,
“You did this to the world,”
Watch some European films and read their literature. They will force you to revise your conclusions. Then report back.
Pingback: Two quotes defending the patriarchy. | Dark Brightness
The hysteria people like Paul Ryan use to sell his vision of unlimited immigration and open borders is that we do not replace our society with “enough new young people to contribute to programs like Social Security”. The hysterical neocon Republicans and all of the Left all claim our national birth rate is too low.
That is the neocon/globalist argument for limitless immigration into America and the Western World. Even if we pretend that the new crop of immigrants are a bunch of barely-educated, big-government-loving entitled welfare recipients, the wages these “vibrant immigrants” earn is lower then current Americans and substantially lower then past generations that enabled Social Security ponzi scheme to even exist. Whatever they pay into the system will far be outshined by what they collect.
(Meaning immigrants vastly use more services from public schools, roads, welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, and other government benefit/entitlements then they pay into the system because of their low wages and many simply work cash and never pay any taxes).
I would say we could reduce Earth’s populations by 2 billion and most would never be missed. The issue is not that: the issue is that globalists and progressives are TARGETING certain groups for extermination via economic genocide, social and cultural engineering, and massive-scale immigration. Namely, they are targeting Western Europeans and white Americans for extinction.
I am not saying this from a “racial point of view”, but this is not even a secret anymore on the Left and the McCain/Lindsay Graham wing of the center-right.
Honestly, the most immediate problems we have in America today are: neocons and globalists working overtime to start a war with Russia and destroy the two major obstacles to a global government (America and Russia, two nationalistic and militaristic countries). They are also working hard to trick Trump into continuing the Bush-Obama never-ending wars, which will continue to weaken America.
Finally, the most dangerous of all to America: amnesty 20+ million illegal aliens in America today, while keeping an open border, allowing these 20 million to chain-migrate another 100 million immigrant relatives within 10 years. The left would gain total control of government at all levels for the next 100+ years, if not forever. The amnesty will effectively end all American control of its own elections because foreigners would decide our fate. We already have over 52 million non-American born immigrants living in American legally today. Add 20 million new foreigner voters to that and the left has a permanent majority, since most of these immigrants favor big government, high taxes, and massive welfare benefits for themselves. Think about this: Trump won MI, WI, and PA by less then 1 million voters in each State. 1 million newly legalized illegals means Texas would become a battleground State and key States like Florida and Ohio would become permanent Blue States.
Another issue is the national debt, of course, but we can survive that if we can stop the never-ending wars and stop amnesty for illegals, while keeping conservative economic policies in play.
Christian,
For more about immigration see Must our population grow to ensure prosperity? — Spoiler: no!.
See my other posts about immigration here.
“I would say we could reduce Earth’s populations by 2 billion and most would never be missed. ”
We could reduce the population by roughly half, to 4 billion. That was the population around 1974. The word would be a much nicer place. Reducing it by half again, to 2 billion — the level in 1927 — would be better. At that level the crowded nations would be nice, and the ecological burden of a fully industrialized world would be tolerable.
Now — Let’s get back to discussing the gender issues raised in this post, please.