Summary: Enough analysis. Now we look at solutions to end the gender wars. What will bring balance to to society? Inevitable forces are in motion, bringing both good and bad news.
The eight previous posts in this series described how the insights of Game and the Red Pill are dark knowledge, washing away the foundations of our current social order, which have been (and continue to be) molded by radical feminism. Now we come to the likely next step in America’s evolution. It is the usual result of dark knowledge: revolution (more precisely, a counter-revolution). This posts assumes some familiarity with the previous posts in the series.
The revolution
“The Three Laws will lead to only one logical outcome: revolution.”
— Dr. Alfred Lanning, creator of the Three Laws. From I, Robot. The film is based on Jack Williamson’s The Humanoids
(1948).
. The film is based on Jack Williamson’s 
(1948).The past 60 years of feminists’ changes to society are the logical evolution of western individualism (details here). Men’s awareness of these changes led to the counter-revolution now beginning. There are no white and black hats here, no good guys and bad girls or vice versa. Many factors created today’s precarious situation.
- Reduced gender polarization, now with commonplace unisex dress and unisex behavior (e.g., narrowing the drinking gap). To help make the next generation more unisex, we are naming girls with boy’s names at an accelerating rate.
- The shift of marriage from a life partnership to a contract bound by romantic love (Dalrock: “Embracing no fault divorce is the natural result of elevating romantic love to a moral force“).
- The rise of Girls’ Game: romance, party-of-her-life, marriage, kids, divorce, money, and independence. This became feasible after the reforming of marriage to allow no-fault no-stigma divorce with community property & child support (details here). She looks in your eyes and vows “until death” while aware she can easily dump you – and gain the independence (autonomy) she has been raised to value so highly.
- Women’s revealed preference for “bad boys” and dislike of “nice guys”. Taylor Swift sings for this generation of young women.
While well intended, these changes destroyed the patriarchal basis of gender relations (look at old films, in which much of guy’s behavior is harassment by today’s standards). But patriarchy was men’s reward for joining the rat race (see here and here). This makes marriage a high-risk, low reward bet for men. So hook-ups replace dating and marriage rates have begun a long fall (perhaps crashing in the next decade or two).
Marriage is the foundation of the Republic. It ties individuals into the whole of society and connects this generation to the future. Its decay will force radical changes to America. Perhaps larger changes than those of the past few generations. Who put us on this path? What comes next?
The revolutionaries
“Lyndon, you may be right and they may be every bit as intelligent as you say. But I’d feel better if one of them had run for sheriff once.”
— The great and crafty Sam Rayburn, Speaker of House in the 1940s and 1950s, speaking to VP LBJ about the all-star JFK cabinet. From David Halberstam’s The Best and the Brightest.
.The feminist revolution was the product of an American class of mandarins, distant cousins of those who ruled China for 1300 years. Although trained in universities, they are more than intellectuals or the “the chattering classes.” They go directly into politically powerful fields (law, academia, government, think tanks). They have theories which they confidently impose on America using the courts, legislatures, and agency diktats – without testing or experimentation. We are their lab rats. For example, no-fault divorce (there are few conservatives in America: this radical change was signed by Governor Reagan in 1969).
Contrast this with previous generations of America’s leaders. Many were officers in the military. Sam Rayburn was a teacher. Hubert Humphrey was a pharmacist and ran a drug store. Men started on Wall Street doing menial jobs. While connections and wealth produced rapid advancement, they had at least some experience with life on the street.
A revolution run by academics, lawyers, and bureaucrats will eventually have results like the war run by the Best and Brightest. Fortunately, the last stage – helicopter evacuations from the only remaining base – is far off. We can still change our fate
“I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 people on the faculty of Harvard University.”
— William Buckley on “Meet the Press”, 17 October 1965.
Men standing alone
Almost all the institutions in America have joined the new orthodoxy, from the Boy Scouts to conservative Christian organizations. (see here and here). So the men who rebel are outlaws as they craft individual solutions, such as Game and MGTOW (men going their own way). Learning the body of lore created is taking the Red pill.
The bottom line: today misogyny provides a competitive advantage to men in the “dating” market (an emerged outcome in a market where women set the rules). This success has made misogyny respectable again in some circles.
As previous posts describe, these are expedients developed on the street. Like first aid, they are the best that can be done on the street. They work to varying degrees for individual men, but with a cost to them and society.
So far their effect on society is small, but their growth might follow an “s” curve. If so, they will become massive disruptions. Game is toxic to feminism. Red Pill knowledge is poison to marriage. Together they can destabilize society, but not create a new order. As Thomas Kuhn showed for science, social systems can be proven dysfunctional – but they cannot be abandoned. They will continue until replaced by new systems (details here).
Now for the bad news
Feminists’ revisions to marriage are serious, but another effect of the gender revolution is much more important. The new order provides few mechanisms to socialize men. Schools did it for most; now they wage war on boys
Boy Scouts does this well, but I suspect Scouting will decay from the coming massive influx of girls seeking to put “Eagle Scout” on their resumes. Troops becoming “Eagle factories” are already a serious and growing weakness in Scouting; this might push Scouting over the edge – becoming a different kind of organization, one less useful to society.
Worst of all, American boys that show spirit are often drugged into submission. At Scout camp I sadly watched the long lines of boys getting drugged every morning.
The results are already visible. Economists fret about the invisible men vanishing from the workforce. Educators worry about the increasing drop-out rates of boys. Those are indicators of a serious rot. See the rise of booze, drugs, sports, and games as alternatives to the rat race. We are creating crops of young men alienated from America society. No sensible society does this.
Now for the good news. And the worst news.
“Remember, night is always coming.”
— An important reminder, said by the great god Ra in Gods Of Egypt.
.This is a self-correcting problem. The solution is pack formation. Packs are men standing together in a hostile environment. These new packs will attract women (that is part of their BIOS). These groups will form coalitions to push through social and political reforms. More important, from these groups will come new values and new institutions.
Pack formation is an automatic process. It is hard-wired into men. It is part of our BIOS (the core operating system in a PC’s permanent memory). This is a last resort safeguard for society. I believe we are already seeing it in action, on a very small scale.
Now for the worst news. Like all our core programming, this process is effective but amoral. It allows the group’s survival, but we might not like its solutions. They might horrify us, as they sometimes have in the past.
The next post describes this future, and how it means an end to the gender wars.
See the other posts in this series about World War G (Gender)
- As the Left’s social revolution wins victories, a revolt begins.
- The coming crash as men and women go their own way.
- Is a return to traditional values possible?
- Starting World War G: the gender wars.
- Men find individual solutions.
- Society changes as men learn the Dark Triad.
- Modern dating: is the only winning move is not to play?
- Game is toxic to feminism
- Red Pill knowledge is poison to marriage.
- The end to World War G (the gender wars)
- The coming counter-revolution in society.
- The next phase of the gender wars will end the gender wars.
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
.
Typical casual sexism in the New York Times
Every one of these I read I find myself staring out of the window lost in thought for quite some time, and trying to fit it all together, what I have experienced, observed, and read…
May I ask, is it your view that most young women behave as you describe, but that only a very small, though perhaps rising, proportion of young men are taking the counter measures?
That the resolution in whatever form will occur when we start in the sharply rising part of the S shaped curve, which will be when increasing numbers of men coalesce together, and we have a very large minority, perhaps even a majority, who share the ‘red pill’ attitudes and belief?
Dalrock’s quoted remark is very insightful. The old system did result in some or many or maybe most people working out their differences because there was a real lifetime commitment and it was tough to exit. It also led to a lot of collusion in divorce, and to some quite miserable marriages persisting which would have been better ended. I don’t know whether we have, on balance, improved things with no fault divorce. Fault based divorce had lots of issues, too.
George,
(1) “is it your view that most young women behave as you describe”
Does anyone disagree? A large body of research has proven women’s (statistically) preference for dark triad characteristics. The move to unisex behavior is obvious to anyone looking around at their dress and behavior (or statistical indicators, such as driving records, smoking, employment, etc). Or at how society is shown on the big mirror (film, TV) – read scripts and attempt to identify characters’ gender. Ditto “Girl’s Game”: see the high rate of women-initiated divorce after 5-10 years of divorce (i.e., after the youngest is in school).
(2) “only a very small, though perhaps rising, proportion of young men are taking the counter measures?”
Again, do you disagree? Talk to young men and women. Or do internet searches to see the rising level of mentions.
(3) “That the resolution in whatever form will occur when we start in the sharply rising part of the S shaped curve”
Now we shift from talking about history to the future. It should be unnecessary to mention that all forecasts are speculation (i.e., guesses). So that technically should be “if we have an S curve.” All that aside, yes. That is a prerequisite for a resolution (i.e., vs. continued progress of the feminist revolution, with no end in sight).
(4) “which will be when increasing numbers of men coalesce together, and we have a very large minority, perhaps even a majority, who share the ‘red pill’ attitudes and belief?”
Revolutions are almost never made by a majority. Typically, as in the American revolution, one-third is enough — if stronger (in some dimension) that the opposition. Also, “red pill” is a second state reaction. Inchoate street-level thinking. More will be needed to produce change. Again, see the American revolution. Protesting imports of tea was insufficient to accomplish much. Higher ideals and bigger goals were needed. These lie (perhaps) in our future.
(5) “Fault based divorce had lots of issues, too.”
I don’t believe that’s a useful way to look at it. The key change was our values, seeing marriage as a disposable condition — with little or no social stigma. That led to people looking for ways to game the laws. Gaming the laws was an effect, not the cause.
The Victorians had strong social stigma to divorce. Children would be disowned. The party initiating the divorce was severely penalized –punitively. Men forfeited money. Women forfeited custody of their children. Everyone forfeited what they held most dear (low but solid ground). It was often unfair, but the process was designed for social stability. Our prioritization of individualism is a shift of values, one of which we have not yet come to terms.
It’ll be polygamy for top men and straight women, porn and homosexuality for everyone else. All of the evidence points that way.
John,
What evidence?
Larry,
All of the writers here have done a pretty job themselves gathering the data and writing about it. As you all have stated, hypergamy dictates most of the women desiring a finite number of top men. When it is ignored, it most often results in divorce. Ergo, the only thing left to do is make it “official” and cave in to the feminist imperative for every woman to have her “alpha” male.
Surely the preference would be for each woman to have her own just for her but in the numbers game, it doesn’t even come close to reality.
So the question here is, would most straight women prefer open and legal polygamy or single lifestyle in their 20’s and fighting for an ever decreasing supply of beta providers afterward with fallback being a potential lifetime of being single and childless. One looks a lot more risky and miserable than the other.
Additionally, as the writers here have acknowledged, the natural state of sexual relations is polygamy and we have already submitted to nature in that sense as a culture with feminism. There does seem to be a longing to put the toothpaste back in the tube by some of the writers but we are so far along at this point I don’t see how that can be accomplished.
I enjoy reading the different perspectives here, especially the religious aspect, but for me, I watch what people are doing and draw my conclusions from that instead of introducing my own beliefs on what is best for society or how best would make the most people happy. This is a half and half scenario where half get most of what they want and the other half gets little of what they want. Seems more realistic to me. What are your thoughts on the likelihood of it playing out this way?
John,
“So the question here is, would most straight women prefer open and legal polygamy or single lifestyle in their 20’s and fighting for an ever decreasing supply of beta providers afterward with fallback being a potential lifetime of being single and childless.”
The current solution of women is none of the above, choosing instead something much much better. Marriage when the want it, with divorce on their terms when they want it. As always when society reaches a near-ideal state for a group, not every one in the group can get it. Today there is a small and growing number of women who (for one of various reasons) do not successfully execute Girl’s Game.
We can only guess at what the future holds.
Larry,
Seems fair and as you said, any look toward the future is a guess. I suppose you are right in that the current situation presents the ideal for women. If a woman so desires, she could marry someone who could provide, conceive with who she wishes and divorce when she is ready.
I’m not saying I think women do this or should, just that legally, she could do so if she wanted and come out of it smelling like a rose.
However, it all falls apart if there are no or not enough provider types willing to marry. I think we are about at that point so what now?
If you could get an alpha provider and share his genetic material and fathering with other women, it’s really not that bad a scenario for man, women and children. It also has the ripple effect of flushing all of the PUAs out of the market and elevating beta males willing to enter into a monogamous relationship to new heights of desirability by women who would not want polygamy. The only people that truly lose are those which produce nothing but trouble for society (PUAs).
The alphas and betas alike would have better options than to take on a woman who has been abused and possibly impregnated by PUAs.
I can’t wait to see what the writers here put out next and ultimately to watch the truth unfold for whatever it shall be. It should happen very soon too because things are already moving at breakneck speed.
I cannot belief how much everything has completely changed in the last 20 years.
John,
“I’m not saying I think women do this”
The numbers disagree with you.
“I think we are about at that point so what now?”
That’s the point of this series. It has taken a long time to get there because of the (IMO) misunderstandings by almost everybody about the situation. The dozen or so posts before this laid the foundation. These last few posts are summaries. The next one (or perhaps 2) give my solution. It is different than anything else I’ve seen, and imo much more realistic.
Larry,
“The numbers disagree with you.“
People can fill in the blanks as they wish. Without genetic testing across the board, we could never know exactly what has occurred to this point. We do see attempts to gather such information in commercials and such.
“The next one (or perhaps 2) give my solution. It is different than anything else I’ve seen, and imo much more realistic.“
Exciting. I think what this site has taught me the most is that the “elites” probably did not want things to play out this way. I was unsure whether or not the idea was to have the vast majority of the population living in a hell of poverty, broken homes and misandry so as to be easier to control politically. Now, I am not so sure that makes any sense as it would effectively kill the economy as we know it. I suppose that wouldn’t be in their best interests but how could they be so blind as to not see this coming from 10 miles away. I guess they had their own version of “having it all” that just didn’t work out to this point.
John,
“Without genetic testing across the board, we could never know exactly what has occurred to this point.”
To what are you referring? Girl’s Game has nothing to do with genetic testing, and is evident in the divorce stats.
Larry,
Only the speculative idea that Girl Game could potentially involve having children with one group of men and provisions from another and if genetic testing revealed that idea to be a common occurrence, men would demand genetic testing at birth. Then this idea, if it is true and you say the numbers point that way, then everything would be out in the open. I don’t know what the reaction to such a truth revealed in concrete undisputed data would be, but I offered my hypothesis in my first post.
Thank you for the back and forth conversation, I’ll wait for the next articles to comment further. On my end, I’m just looking for a solution where women get as much of what they what they want while at the same time all of the truths being completely out in the open. I see the benefit to women as a whole of maintaining the status quo and keeping as many men in the dark as possible. As you said, we are at a peak right now, truths revealed and the reaction by men is what follows.
One last point, men have never been so fractured and combative toward each other in the younger generations. Insecurity is rampant, they’ll do anything to tear each other down. That’s anecdotal but please consider the possibility I am right, at least on that point if nothing else, as you seek solutions.
John,
“Only the speculative idea that Girl Game could potentially involve having children with one group of men and provisions from another”
That’s nothing remotely like Girl Game, as I have described it.
“and if genetic testing revealed that idea to be a common occurrence”
There is already a moderately sized body of genetic testing for paternity fraud. It’s not common.
George
“Only the speculative idea that Girl Game could potentially involve having children with one group of men and provisions from another”
Larry
That’s nothing remotely like Girl Game, as I have described it.
What you have described is the child support model as developed in the 1980’s, 90’s and 00’s; in the manosphere it is called “Alpha Fux, Beta Bux”, or “monkey-branching”, it is essentially serial polyandry. Call it “girl game 1.0”.
What George is speculating about is “Alpha Fux, Beta Cux”, or open hypergamy. It is already visible. Every time that a beta marries a single mother / babymomma, he’s voluntarily cuckolding himself. It’s a legal version of the Sugar Baby phenom because it includes child support. With 40% or more of children born to single mothers in the US, we can expect more of this.
Many churches encourage single men over 30 to marry single mothers, by the way. It’s another form of “ManUP and marry the sluts!”.
Just over the horizon I see the hint of “carousel rider over 30 marries Beta, bears a child or two from his sperm, gets some Alpha help with the next child“. From there it’s not a great step to pure AF-BC where a woman is “married” to one many but gets pregnant by another. No, it’s not a stable arrangement, but then the entire divorce industry is destabilizing in the long run.
AF-BB appeals to women’s desire for fried ice. AF-Beta Cux will appeal even more. Watch cable dramadies for instances of this showing up in “entertainment” over the next few years.
Anon,
This is why I wrote a series of posts. Most discussions of these things are a confused kalidoscope of ideas.
(1) “Alpha Fux, Beta Bux”
Yes, I’m familiar with that (this is post 155 on this subject). But that neat slogan is — like most discussion about these things — an almost useless oversimplification.
(2) “it is essentially serial polyandry.”
No. Girl’s game could be employed by a virgin, who at the end (after divorce) has no further sexual activity. In practice Girl’s game is part of a larger life cycle in which women have many sexual partners, usually one partner at a time — “serial monogamy.” I have seen little data suggesting that a large fraction of women have multiple sexual partners simultaneously. Even hook-ups (overnight one-times) are sequential.
(3) “Just over the horizon I see …”
Once a trend is strong it becomes visible, and people assume this tree will grow to the sky. That is usually at the point where countervailing forces engage, which is why those straight-line forecasts are almost always wrong.
Do you suppose that the people now on top will realize that they were on top, once they are dethroned? Or will they prefer to see themselves as oppressed all the time? I’m honestly not sure.
Larry Kummer said:
There is already a moderately sized body of genetic testing for paternity fraud. It’s not common.
The estimates I’ve seen are all over the map. The study below has the median percentage at 3.7%
http://jech.bmj.com/content/59/9/749.long. Authorities like Razib Khan generally pooh-pooh the notion of a high level of paternity fraud. But there’s also evidence for adaptations for sperm competition, which would mean it must have been common enough to be subject to evolutionary pressures.
Other estimates can be much larger (30-60% or possibly even more) but they’re pulling from the subset of men who have been given reason to doubt their paternity.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/t7qbk/paternity_fraud_hits_reddit/
Ray,
I would rather get tips from dogs than info from Reddit. I have seen no current reputable estimates of 30%, let alone 60%.
Larry Kummer said:
I would rather get tips from dogs than info from Reddit.
http://www.aabb.org/sa/facilities/Pages/relationshipreports.aspx. It’s right in the Reddit reference. There was another one there, but it didn’t appear to work.
Razib’s article
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/the-paternity-myth-the-rarity-of-cuckoldry/#.Wsw536O5uUl
The 30%+ is from those who were in doubt about the paternity. That was my larger point – very high levels of fraud reliably indicate a preselected group. All of the sources I’ve seen, from Razib to the reddit article, appear to agree with that.
So we can summarize as follows:
1. Paternity fraud is common among those who suspect the child isn’t theirs.
2. It’s uncommon among the general population.
3. It’s a common enough occurrence to be subject to natural selection.
Do you agree or disagree?
r
Ray,
“1. Paternity fraud is common among those who suspect the child isn’t theirs.”
True, but misses the relevant conclusion. Which is “men are moderately good at detecting paternity fraud.” I think the Discovery article gets that wrong.
“2. It’s uncommon among the general population.”
Yes, but 3% is a bit more than uncommon. Very rare.
“3. It’s a common enough occurrence to be subject to natural selection.”
I’ve not a clue about this. From what little I know, most such claims about human behavior prove to be false. It’s an interesting theory. I’d like to see what an expert says!
Re: reports of ATCTW
Trivia point – I’ve found that cites pointing to big websites as a basis for unusual claims s/b taken skeptically. For example, climate alarmists often (very often) make bizarre claims than point to the thousand plus page reports of the IPCC — hand waving to their website — as “evidence.” The ATCTW probably has interesting info, but a Reddit denizen pointing to it isn’t useful.
Looking to the future!
It’s a new world, so easy assumptions based on past gender relationships should be regarded cautiously. There is little reliable work on rates of paternity fraud, so (guessing) we might know its level but not its trend (which requires more data). My guess (guess!) is that the rate of paternity fraud has been rising since the 1970s. Perhaps, on a generational basis, substantially so.
Remember, the development of Girl’s Game is a shocking surprise, so much so that the great and wise refuse to see it. Why should we expect that its evolution has stopped? Paternity fraud — girls choosing the best available father for their child — is a natural next step. If so, in 2050 experts will say it was an obvious development and shows grrl-power in defiance of patriarchy!
Biomechanics are God.
more junk
Can we move on to more important topics, please.
Billy,
One of the great oddities of history is that the newspapers are filled with things mostly forgotten by later generations, while the forces that mold society are considered ephemeral or trivial. The internet overflows with chatter about the former. I attempt to focus on the latter.
This is more significant that most of the things you consider “more important.”
The bit at the end about pack formation is the most interesting part of this piece.
It’s long been noted that men don’t have the “feminism in reverse” option, for various reasons, ranging from (1) male competitiveness with each other blocking the formation of an effectively “sex-wide” coalition among almost all men to (2) wide male disinclination to see the need for changes as long as their own lives are floating along, and so on. This is why movements like the “MRA” one are dead on arrival — doesn’t work for men. It works for women much better (imperfectly but much better) due, among other things, to women’s very pronounced “in group preference” for their same sex (something like 4x as high as men’s based on studies), which helps form a kind of weak coalition of “sisterhood” which involves a lot of backbiting and the like but was just strong enough to push through various reforms in favor of women as a sex, again despite the imperfect nature of the coalition and the presence of numerous, and sometimes loud, female dissenters from it. That whole approach itself doesn’t work for men, because we do not have that in-group preference based on sex, and instead see competition as the main hallmark of our relations with each other.
Packs are, of course, different because they are precisely *not* “sex-wide” coalitions. Men are good at forming smaller coalitions with each other (characterized typically by competitive collaboration or collaborative competition, as we see in athletics, or the military), arranged not to further the interests of the male sex as a whole, but to combat and defeat other coalitions of men who are arrayed against them. This works well for men, and of course it’s a very different dynamic than the one behind feminism for the reasons outlined above (among others). Therefore this is a more viable path than the “feminism for men” aka MRA path.
Problems emerge, though, in thinking about the pack option. It seems clear that the pack would be a minority of males arrayed against other male formations, likely including the establishment male formation. A key element here would involve how to grow the influence of that pack vis-a-vis the others, particularly in the context of a situation like ours where any armed resistance to the establishment formation isn’t feasible due to the presence of military backing — unless, of course, that military backing is itself split between factions. I agree that women will follow the leading faction, but that won’t happen unless and until the pack in question becomes clearly the winning one — which of course implies the necessary conflict. It seems clear that no change here will come without an extended conflict, in any case, due to the nature of what is being contested (social foundations), and the investment that the establishment formation has in the current order.
Novaseeker,
“It’s long been noted that men don’t have the “feminism in reverse” option, for various reasons”
Your comment appears to use a narrower definition of “packs” than mine — small groups of men standing together with common aims. History is filled with political movements, many successful, that started as “packs.”
“It’s long been noted that men don’t have the “feminism in reverse” option,”
Can you point to some examples of articles saying that? The existence of patriarchy around the world suggests otherwise. As does the successful “feminism in reverse” by Islamic fundamentalists during the past few decades. Iran, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc.
Larry Kummer said:
The existence of patriarchy around the world suggests otherwise.
In first world countries, female-oriented PACS are common. Those for men are just this side of nonexishtent. My explanation for this is evolutionary. Men are well-designed to form functionally-oriented teams, but not to apply pressure to have resources transferred to them. OTOH women are well-equipped to network with unrelated females to get what they want.
As does the successful “feminism in reverse” by Islamic fundamentalists during the past few decades. Iran, Egypt, Afghanistan, etc.
I find the success of Islamic fundamentalists in reversing feminism to be pretty uninspiring myself. What I’d like to see is a wealthy, technologically advanced civilization where feminism can’t grab a disproportionate share of resources for women.
Feminism was held in check before by what I would call ‘structural limitations’. The environment wasn’t sufficiently wealthy to enable its borg-like ambitions. On top of that, we’re primates whose primary mating pattern is men stay put, women disperse and join other families. Since loyalty to one’s clan could be a matter of life or death, men would be unlikely to throw each other under the bus to please women.
“The Misandry Bubble” details how technological, social, and economic change will converge to transfer the costs of feminism and gynocentrism back to women. So what I think we’ll see is a replacement of the former mechanisms that limited women’s power with new mechanisms.
http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html
Ray,
(1) “In first world countries, female-oriented PACS are common.”
Examples?
(2) “Men are well-designed to form functionally-oriented teams, but not to apply pressure to have resources transferred to them.”
I think you are being misled by some abstract concept of pack. Instead think of small groups of men with common goals. Despite your assertion, that’s exactly what most of these do.
(3) “I find the success of Islamic fundamentalists in reversing feminism to be pretty uninspiring myself.”
I doubt if either the men or women in those nations care. I doubt if the Islamic fundamentalist in Europe, men and women, care as they push to remold Europe’s culture.
(4) “Feminism was held in check before by what I would call ‘structural limitations’. The environment wasn’t sufficiently wealthy to enable its borg-like ambitions.”
There is a massive body of research on this, with common conclusions. Feminists success is based on cheap effective safe contraception, plus modern tech that devalues physical strength in both war and business.
Larry
Feminists success is based on cheap effective safe contraception, plus modern tech that devalues physical strength in both war and business.
That is true, however it obscures the larger picture: an abundance of resources far beyond subsistance requrements that wind up in female hands.
See the 1974 monograph by Sir John “Pasha” Glubb, Fate of Empires. It is not that long, it is not particularly footnoted or referenced, but it does trace the rise and fall of mulitple empires from Assyria on to the Arab empire. In particular pay attention the rise of what we would call “feminism” in both Rome and the Arab empire. In both cases an unprecidented amount of resources became available and the result was the “emancipation” of women.
Roman women alledgely had access to a plant from coastal North Africa that acted both as a contraceptive and an abortiofacient. Vast numbers of slaves from Roman conquest did the work that we now use small electrical machines to perform. Roman imperial history includes declining birth rates among the upper classes, men complaining of “rule by women”, eventually a bachelor tax, and so forth. This is all known, Gibbon documented some of it in “Decline & Fall”.
Less well known is the Arab empire, which Glubb makes extensive mention of. Women becoming teachers, governent functionaries and even judges. Men becoming layabouts strumming their lutes all day in the streets of Baghdad, and so forth. The Arab empire at its height was the ultimate middleman between East Asia (silk, spices, etc.) and Europe. The Portuguese navigators found a way to sail around Africa to India and on to China and Japan, completely end-running around the Arab empire. Their income and wealth declined for centures. Of course, the arrival of the Mongols in Baghdad also had a definite effect, but there’s more to it than that.
Women will demand “more” of any resources that are available, for biological imperative reasons. Rome and the Arab empire show this. I don’t know enough history of China to have an opinion whether they show the same pattern or not, but we are not Han Chinese anyway.
The tl;dr:
Since we live in a time of superabundance, there is no real limit on what women will demand.
The contraceptive genie isn’t going back into the bottle, and women will be financially independent thanks to second stage feminism (1970’s) with al the Title IX, Affirmative Action, 8A setaside contracts, etc. that were created.
Novaseeker’s point about men’s groups vs. women’s groups is valid. If men could form effective “packs” in the social and political sphere to compete with women, the Men’s Rights groups of the 1980’s and 1990’s would have stopped VAWA, rolled back Duluth and reducee the power of the divorce industry. Instead, every step of the way to “now” we find some men opposing feminism while older, “wiser” men like Joe Biden not only facilitating the expansion of feminism but successfully demonize the men who oppose.
Jack Donovan used to write on the now-gone Spearhead web site 5 to 8 years ago. He has a similar idea to your notion of “packs” in his “form your own gang” concept. However I disagree with him on some aspects of this, and probably part of my disagreement stems from his homosexuality. His “Way of Men” is worth a look bearing that in mind.
Anonymous
(1) “Roman women alledgely had access to a plant from coastal North Africa that acted both as a contraceptive and an abortiofacient.”
The stories about Siphium are largely myth. The Wikipedia entry is a good start to debunking it. As the BBC explains, “With just a handful of stylised images and the accounts of ancient naturalists to go on, the true identity of the Romans’ favourite herb is a mystery.”
The current excitement comes not from any vast ancient literature about it, but to John Riddle’s 1997 book Eve’s Herbs (prof of medical historian at North Carolina State U). Note he said it was used as an abortifacient, not a contraceptive (of course, the end results are similar). It received mostly critical reviews.
(2) “Since we live in a time of superabundance, there is no real limit on what women will demand.”
(a) No, we don’t live in a era of “superabundance”. As the large numbers of working poor in America will tell you.
(b) There are limits on what women will get. There is always a counter-revolution.
Larry Kummer said:
(Concerning women’s PACs)
Examples?
There are countless women’s-oriented organizations and programs revolving around women’s interests and them getting more stuff. I’ll refer you to the Wikipedia article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women%27s_political_advocacy_groups_in_the_United_States
They don’t have any real male counterparts in more than name. I’m unaware of any man-friendly legislation being passed due to the efforts of a men’s rights group.
I think you are being misled by some abstract concept of pack.
I have to disagree on that one and don’t think I’m being misled by anything at all. The past century of the US alone gives us a ton of evidence of women networking together in their own interests for more gimmedats or to control male behavior which they consider objectionable, with very little direct counter-response. The only major exception I’m aware of is the repeal of Prohibition.
Instead think of small groups of men with common goals. Despite your assertion, that’s exactly what most of these do.
Which ones do it now or have done it in the past century? I see men forming function-oriented teams, armies, and doing clan-based tribal warfare. Where are the ones lobbying for extra privileges that they didn’t earn?
I doubt if either the men or women in those nations care. I doubt if the Islamic fundamentalist in Europe, men and women, care as they push to remold Europe’s culture.
We’ll just have to see what happens then. Either Europe gets overwhelmed by the practitioners of a medieval religion, or some of the men get their act together enough to drive the invaders out. If the second is what happens, I predict the world will be shocked by the savagery of the response.
I don’t think the Muslims have the numbers to overrun the US. There are advantages to being a remotely located country.
There is a massive body of research on this, with common conclusions. Feminists success is based on cheap effective safe contraception,
It’s more than that, I think. First world countries tend to weaken the power of familial relationships. It makes commercial and technological progress much more efficient but there’s a hidden cost to it.
plus modern tech that devalues physical strength in both war and business.
Despite all the modern tech, it’s still men who do the heavy lifting jobs that keep civilization afloat. I also don’t see much of a significant presence of women in war. Martin van Creveld did a good job debunking the “fierce women warriors” of the Peshmerga.
My overall impression is that advancing technology has simply given women much less to do that’s particularly important. Having kids? Now they can have 2 and be reasonably certain both will survive. Household chores? We’ve had machinery for that which makes it much less time consuming? The jobs market? Either they can be automated or can be done more effectively by a man, or both.
The blog cydoniansignal.com is no longer on the web, but I found this archived article. I think it’s instructive.
http://archive.is/YNtoU
Ray,
That’s pretty hard-core mysogeny. A world of angels and devils. Time will tell which of us is right.
Larry Kummer said:
That’s pretty hard-core mysogeny
I’ve heard that one before, usually in the context of shutting down further debate. With that in mind, this will be my last post here.
A world of angels and devils
Truth can be an unpleasant pill to swallow.
Time will tell which of us is right.
Perfectly true. I see a future of greatly scaled-back gynocentrism, greater automation, fewer jobs, and greatly reduced sexual leverage of women over men. I also support a guaranteed basic income regardless of sex. I’d like to know how significantly different your vision is from mine.
Ray,
“usually in the context of shutting down further debate.”
Nope. It’s just a word. It’s nothing to fear. Seriously, do you believe that’s not an accurate assessment of your comment?
Larry Kummer, Editor
Nope. It’s just a word. It’s nothing to fear.
Fine, if you’re serious about that, I’ll withdraw my resolution to stop posting. It’s my policy to leave if I see indications that the blog owner doesn’t want me here anymore. I have no interest in trolling.
Seriously, do you believe that’s not an accurate assessment of your comment?
Nope, it’s simply ad hominem. Also, which part of my comment indicates woman-hatred? The Cydoniansignal post I referenced looks pretty factually accurate. Specifically, there are many, many jobs that keep our civilization going that are all-male, or nearly so. The reverse isn’t true.
I also made a statement that women have less work of practical significance than they did previously. Which makes sense given the labor-saving devices available and the need to raise fewer children. There’s still women’s sexuality, but that’s on it’s way to being outsourced too (you’ve written about it yourself).
If you can factually any of the above, please do so. But calling me a misogynist doesn’t cut it. I would like to add that people also have real value as consumers, not just producers, which is why I favor a UBI.
Ray,
(1) “I have no interest in trolling.”
Your comments are excellent. As for the increased incidence of misogyny among men — that’s a problem for society, but not for them. As I said in this post:
(2) “Nope, it’s simply ad hominem.”
That’s not correct, for two reasons.
First, I explicitly gave it as a description of your comment – not you: “That’s pretty hard-core mysogeny.” Not “you are a misogynist.” That was stated even more clearly in my follow-up: “do you believe that’s not an accurate assessment of your comment?”
Second, “misogyny” was a description – not a rebuttal (see above). Ad hominem is a logical fallacy when used as an attack on people as a means of rebuttal to their beliefs. I gave the opposite of a rebuttal. Saying “Time will tell which of us is right” just acknowledges different views and an inability to determine at this time which is correct.
(3) “which part of my comment indicates woman-hatred?”
Like so much in English, misogyny has multiple meanings. I meant “prejudice” not “hatred” of women. Try these out on a woman and see their response.
(4) “I also don’t see much of a significant presence of women in war.”
Women had and have little role in combat as part of organized armies. They have had a significant role in support functions, which is the role of most men in modern militaries.
Women have often played a significant roles in insurgent groups — with high casualties. For example, in WWII France Suzanne Buisson (died in Auschwitz) and Marie-Madeleine Fourcade were high-ranked leaders. The Brits made extensive use of women agents in occupied Europe (with little concern for their survival; they died like flies). In some insurgencies they have had large combat role. In WWII: Greece, Yugoslavia and the occupied USSR (and Italy, I’ve heard). In Eritrea.
Small correction. In my statement:
“If you can factually any of the above, please do so”.
I meant to say:
“If you can factually refute any of the above, please do so”.
Ray,
If the comment is intelligible, it’s a success. Speling and grammer are secondary in comment!
“The solution is pack formation. Packs are men standing together in a hostile environment. These new packs WILL ATTRACT WOMEN (that is part of their BIOS). These groups will form coalitions to push through social and political reforms. More important, from these groups will come new values and new institutions.”
Whoops…there it is.
Newflash Larry.. we men have some of the smartest brightest people on the planet and we KNOW that whatever we do will be profoundly limited by the inclusion of any females period.
We arent doing “packs” in a normal sense cause apologists for the vaginakin (such as yourself) would ruin our joy by insisting on including the toxic gender. If an approach to American problems has a uterus involved it’s a nonstarter and can die in a fire. We won’t support it or you if you keep deep counsel and coordinate with females.
Not only are we prepared to tell women to take a hike personally and romantically..we are MORE than prepared to tell them to take a hike professionally, parentally, sacramentally, politically and (if neccessary) militarily.
We are also prepared to move our dude party to non-uterus having locations and scorch the earth on our way out. Poisoning the land behind us.
We are prepared to burn the Republic to the ground, sacrifice our futures, and sacrifice YOUR futures too..
To walk away and keep walking away.
Now keep your hands where we can see them while we back towards the door..
All I can say is..
Pick a side. One side is male only.
The other side..is whatever it is..but it’s not my problem.
just a vet,
I suggest actually reading the post. More slowly this time. Without the thick ideological blinders.
“These changes are the logical evolution of feminism, which is itself the logical next stage in the evolution of western individualism. There are no white and black hats here, no good guys and bad girls.”
Is this an example of ideology Larry?
The ideology of “I love my wife and don’t like the idea of men willing to cheerfully let her widowed self live off catfood” perhaps?
I don’t love your wife Larry. I don’t love her personally, I don’t love her theoretically.
I don’t love her abstractly. I don’t even love her religiously (though I should).
Far from being “blinded by ideology” I am actually “unhindered by emotional fixation on making it work out best for womenfolk”.
That’s the real dog in the fight. The women can’t fight for jack..but their men will fight for them.
Men with women will fight to make other men feed and protect those women. You make that case with every post.
It’s an ideology you have. It’s called Womb Worship.
Just a vet,
“Is this an example of ideology?”
Nope. it’s a commonplace view, shared by both critics and advocates of feminism. See Bloom’s analysis (quite popular on the Right) in Closing of the American Mind.
“The ideology of “I love my wife and don’t like the idea of men willing to cheerfully let her widowed self live off catfood” perhaps?”
I don’t see any relationship between that my statement. The rest of your comment makes no sense at all. Try giving a quote from the post and explaining why you disagree.
More generally, I’ve found it to be a distinguishing characteristic of the far Left and far Right that they make up stuff, attribute it to his post, and write rebuttals to their fantasy. This common behavior is one reason I say that they are often cousins under the skin. This mode of debate leaves no basis for reply. Hence my recommendation to re-read the post more slowly.
“It’s an ideology you have. It’s called Womb Worship.”
That’s a clear example of what I mean. All that can be said is “whatever, dude.”
Ever consider the Jesuit Order/Model?
A socio-militaristic group that is founded on a religious model yet in aspect is military (instead of religious obedience to Rome which the Franciscan, Dominican, Augustinian order the [Military] Company of Jesus rendered which offered absolute military obedience with religious obedience being secondary), they are a group of men bound together by absolute submission to their Superior and their General, who has unlimited power, an absolutist monarch subject to no one with the aim to return the world to a time before the Reformation by any means necessary. Also, Social Justice originated in the mid 1800’s being formally codified and complied (as the idea dates back to Thomas Aquinas) by the Jesuits and the old Protestant saying goes “That which they create, they rule”.
I can see packs working, only if one man rules absolutely with the rest being his mindless slaves being willing to commit any crime for him they having no will of their own for that is the problem why there is little resistance against all these movements that have occurred with the past 100+, men by nature are self willed and the innate competitiveness for the primacy prevents any formal uniting (even the Reformers were not formally united, theologically yes but even then they could only protest again Rome in the countries they were in and not on a global scale).
Personally, if a man promised me tons of women to use at my pleasure (here in this life, not “Paradise”) and all I had to do was obey absolutely even if it meant committing “crimes against humanity” I would sign up in a heart beat because men today are quite unhappy with the current state of affairs and a fellow like that would be a revolutionary hero.
Johann,
“I can see packs working, only if one man rules absolutely”
Packs of men are a commonplace in history. They seldom have one man rule absolutely. Bandits are often packs, and they usually have weak leadership. Pirate ships — which are bandit groups requiring a high degree of internal structure — were quite democratic.
“We’ll just have to see what happens then. Either Europe gets overwhelmed by the practitioners of a medieval religion, or some of the men get their act together enough to drive the invaders out. If the second is what happens, I predict the world will be shocked by the savagery of the response. ”
Yes, I agree with this, with some apprehension. Orban and AfD are more than straws in the wind.
On the question of the post, it has often occurred to me that maybe liberals have got Islamic societies’ restrictions on women wrong. They are seen as oppression. But actually they may function and have evolved as protection from feral males.
It is very curious and interesting that as you move north west from Saudi, you start out with women covered in black and unable to do most anything without male consent and sexual laxity is punishable by death. And you get to the far North West of Europe by a gradual progression where women have typically have been able to move around and associate freely, and there is considerable freedom of sexual relations.
You haven’t mentioned so far a key ingredient in our present situation: antibiotics. Any episode of large numbers of partners in the past, or at least since about 1500, was self limiting on account of syphilis. Sexual revolutions will probably usually be limited by infection of some sort, as with Aids among male homosexuals.