Summary: All societies put leashes on the sexuality of both men and women. In America the leashes are tightening on men while women are unleashed. It’s an experiment, conducted blindly and guided only by ideology. Dalrock reports from the front lines about the unexpected results.
Two symptoms of our society’s growing dysfunctionality are seldom mentioned. First is our inability to see threats. We are like a ship’s crew frantically dashing about with fire hoses while the vessel sinks. For example, we worry about overpopulation while fertility crashes (disruptive to the economy although good for the ecology). Second, we recklessly tinker with core aspects of our society — without testing, rapidly, guided only by ideology. Such as communism.
The most potentially destructive are those cases where we do both. Such as the revolution in gender roles. We relentlessly tighten the leashes on men’s behavior while unleashing women. It is a gigantic experiment with few precedents in history. We do not understand what is happening because we won’t see what is happening. It is run like allowing monkeys at the controls of a nuclear power plant. They are bold and happy; the results might be unpleasant.
Here Dalrock looks at one aspect of the gender revolution – one way young women behave when unleashed by society. The results are already unexpected, a violation of PC to see, and DoublePlusUngood knowledge.
“Raising Feral Females.“
By Dalrock, at his website. Posted with his generous permission.
I was talking with a good friend of mine roughly a year ago about what I had been reading in the manosphere. At the time I hadn’t started blogging yet and was primarily reading Roissy (see note). At one point in the conversation I asked him what it would look like if women lacked civilizational restraint. What would it look like if women went feral?
After a significant pause without reply, I re-framed it and asked what it would look like if men weren’t properly civilized. What would they do if they followed only their base instincts? Pretty quickly he came up with a description which was roughly a cross between Animal House
I thought about this again when getting a haircut the other week. Two mothers with junior high aged daughters were talking about the kinds of clothing their girls were wearing. It fascinated me to hear how confused they were about what was actually going on. They were sure that the girls were only dressing like little hookers because of pressure society was putting on them. What they didn’t understand was the girls were dressing like hookers because society wasn’t putting any pressure on them. Female intra-sexual competition being what it is, this is what young women will devolve to if all restraints are lifted. Today’s crop of young women are perilously close to as Zeets would say* presenting like a red-assed chimp.
Commenter MNL responded to my post Her Parents Must Be Proud with a link to a WSJ article by Jennifer Moses “Why Do We Let Them Dress Like That?” {gated} which addresses the same question and suffers from the same flawed premise.
“In the pale-turquoise ladies’ room, they congregate in front of the mirror, re-applying mascara and lip gloss, brushing their hair, straightening panty hose and gossiping: This one is ‘skanky,’ that one is ‘really cute,’ and so forth. Dressed in minidresses, perilously high heels, and glittery, dangling earrings, their eyes heavily shadowed in black-pearl and jade, they look like a flock of tropical birds. A few minutes later, they return to the dance floor, where they shake everything they’ve got under the party lights.”
But for the most part, there isn’t all that much to shake. This particular group of party-goers consists of 12- and 13-year-old girls. Along with their male counterparts, they are celebrating the bat mitzvah of a classmate in a cushy East Coast suburb.
It is interesting that she herself makes the colorful bird analogy, but still manages to miss the underlying biology involved here. She also misses another glaring neon sign, which is the significance of the event she was witnessing. The description below the video explains that peer pressure is at the root of the issue:
“Today’s teen and preteen girls are bombarded with images and products that tout the benefits of sexual attraction. But must we as parents, give in to their desire to ‘dress like everyone else?’ asks author Jennifer Moses.”
But what if it isn’t the culture driving the young girls this way? What if the young girls are driving the culture? This is extremely important, because parents, schools, pastors, etc. can’t begin to address the challenge while in denial of what the real drivers are. We don’t assume a teenage boy caught with a Playboy was only looking at it to keep up with the other boys. But we can’t bring ourselves to be honest about the sexuality of women in general, and young women in specific.
This is especially damaging because young women and men tend not to fully understand the forces they are operating under themselves. Pretending that it is solely the work of some outside force only makes it more confusing and difficult for them to manage while robbing them of a sense of accountability.
Moses moves to the next part of her question, which is why do parents in general (and mothers in specific) actively help their daughters tart themselves up? Her friend offers the first hypothesis:
“’It isn’t that different from when we were kids,’ she said. ‘The girls in the sexy clothes are the fast girls. They’ll have Facebook pictures of themselves opening a bottle of Champagne, like Paris Hilton. And sometimes the moms and dads are out there contributing to it, shopping with them, throwing them parties at clubs. It’s almost like they’re saying, Look how hot my daughter is. But why? ‘I think it’s a bonding thing,’ she said. ‘It starts with the mommy-daughter manicure and goes on from there.’”
Thinking about the underlying biological principles involved, this makes sense. When not competing against her daughter for sexual attention the mother would have every reason to assist her daughter in competing against other young women for that same attention. The author agrees that she experiences a thrill when seeing her daughter tarted up, especially since she herself is somewhat past the age to turn heads. But she proposes a different answer:
“I have a different theory. It has to do with how conflicted my own generation of women is about our own past, when many of us behaved in ways that we now regret. A woman I know, with two mature daughters, said, “If I could do it again, I wouldn’t even have slept with my own husband before marriage. Sex is the most powerful thing there is, and our generation, what did we know?”
“We are the first moms in history to have grown up with widely available birth control, the first who didn’t have to worry about getting knocked up. We were also the first not only to be free of old-fashioned fears about our reputations but actually pressured by our peers and the wider culture to find our true womanhood in the bedroom. Not all of us are former good-time girls now drowning in regret – I know women of my generation who waited until marriage – but that’s certainly the norm among my peers.”
Wow. This makes sense as well. A bit further down she follows up with:
“I wouldn’t want us to return to the age of the corset or even of the double standard, because a double standard that lets the promiscuous male off the hook while condemning his female counterpart is both stupid and destructive. If you’re the campus mattress, chances are that you need therapy more than you need condemnation.”
Swirling around in there amongst the biological imperatives is the extreme investment these women have in the ideology which lead to their own bad choices. Even as they acknowledge the badness of their own past choices they can’t stop promoting them, because they so loudly promoted them in the past. Note who they are looking to protect. Preventing their daughter from needing therapy by not letting her become the campus mattress would protect their own daughters, but at the expense of acknowledging the harm their own feminist ideals have created. Given the choice, they will protect the young version of themselves instead of protecting their own young.
Still, I highly recommend reading the full column {gated} and even more watching the accompanying video {not gated}. The level of recognition of the harm these women caused themselves and (by being unwilling to let go of feminist ideals) will cause their own daughters is astounding.
*Note: Roissy/Citizen Renegade/Heartiste is a pickup site and is very crass. The chimp quote from Zeets is from this Heartiste post.
—————————————–
More by Dalrock about the West unleashing women
- Watching gender dynamics in the wild (i.e., in bars): Calibrating attraction by controlling the venue.
- Will we have a nation of Overcivilized men and uncivilized women.
- The power of men over all women, including feminists: Lay down your arms.
- Neither the word nor the concept of “slut” can be legitimized: Yiayia and the empress’s new clothes and “Slut!“
- Modesty standards are sinful.
- Nude selfies and the complementarian male gaze.
- About abolishing school dress codes: Meet the new Yiayia. Her name is Sheila.
About Dalrock
He is a married man living with his wife and two kids in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. He is very interested in how the post feminist world impacts himself and his family, uses his blog to explore these issues. See his website.
For more information
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, about marriage, and especially these …
- A look at America’s future after marriage becomes rare.
- Misadventures of a young woman in modern America.
- The disastrous results of trying to “have it all”.
- The coming crash as men and women go their own way.
- Modern women say “follow the rules while we break them.”
- “Celebs Go Dating” shows young women in action.
- Why women use cosmetics (the answer reveals much).
Books to help us understand the gender revolution
The Privileged Sex
Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy
A woman is quoted as saying:
and at the conclusion the author says:
The question is, what is this harm, what were these bad choices, and how should they have acted? It sounds like the damage is supposed to have been done by having more than one partner? Or in the quoted remark, having slept with one’s husband before the ceremony?
The damage done by efforts to enforce is have been enormous, and it has never succeeded. I agree with what the author says about display and lack of restraint, its causes and nature. But if this is the ideal, its not the answer.
I meant to say, the efforts to enforce strict and universal monogamy have never succeeded and have done enormous damage. Let me explain. I grew up in an era of great sexual ignorance and repression, it was an era in which sex, desire, its role in relationships was never talked about. It was an era also in which mothers spent enormous energy suppressing their daughters’ sexuality. Who in turn were repressed, uptight, and were the enforcers of the sexual restraint of men. It produced real misery. The whole absurd concept of ‘pre-marital’ sex (was it invented in the US?) was still alive then, and people seriously debated whether it was permissible, mostly concluding it was not. Read Wayland Young, Eros Denied, for a book written at the tail end of this era.
This was the era in which Lady Chatterley was illegal because obscene, in which one could not legally import Ulysses into the US, doubtless owing to the last chapter. We grew up in an atmosphere in which sexual desire and fulfilment were regarded in the culture as what Lawrence calls the ‘dirty little secret’. Parents awaited with embarassment and mortification the time when they would have to explain the facts of life to their children.
I was fortunate enough to come of age when this era was ending, so have seen both the misery of repression and also the mixed benefits of sexual emancipation.
Much has gone wrong, and is wrong, about our regulation of the relations between the sexes. But no-one who knew the previous era would ever want to go back on previous attitudes to human sexuality.
Let me give an anecdotal example. Think about Shere Hite’s book, and the whole cultural mystique of the ‘vaginal orgasm’ as found in Freud. Generations of women were not only repressed, but made to feel inadequate because penetrative intercourse didn’t give them climaxes. The story was, this is unusual and abnormal and defective. No it wasn’t. It was just the way 70% of women are, and they are perfectly good sexual beings with it.
But it took the emancipation of the sixties to allow the culture to say and accept it.
The concept of pre-marital sex as illicit certainly began aeons before the American experiment was ever conceived.
This is part of the reason why prostitites exist.
Pingback: Is Feminism chaining men? – Coalition of the Brave
Thinking about this again. Its very thought-provoking, so thanks for posting it. Question for Dalrock, and perhaps also for Larry.
Would you wish for everyone to be virgin until and if they marry, and be, after marriage, monogamous? And if unmarried, chaste? Except for widowing and divorce men and women would have just one sexual partner their whole lives?
I am not saying this is right or wrong, I would just like to know if that is what you think is right and desirable.
George,
Dalrock probably prefers the pre-WWII Christian-based western morality.
I am just an analyst. Since nobody is going to ask me to be king, I spend no time on such questions. I merely point out that our current path is likely to end in tears, as we conduct wild experiments on ourselves.
Much like communism. Or those b-grade science fiction films where a scientists tests his drug on himself.
Perhaps the way to make progress on it would be to disentangle our present approach and the changes that are being made. Which changes and approaches are logically connected, so they form a coherent set and if you pick one, you have also to pick the others. And which are accidentally just happen to be happening at the same time.
I would think, for instance, that paternity is independent. One could, as the UK has, take the view that a man is only responsible legally for supporting his biological children (or perhaps ones he has legally adopted, not sure what the UK does about that). And still go to no-fault divorce. Which the UK is only now seriously thinking about doing, but has so far not done. I’d have thought that generally relaxed attitudes to non-marital sex and to gay sex were independent of how divorce and paternity are handled. Regulation of porn also is probably an independent variable.
On the other hand, it seems likely that open discussion and information about sexual matters is probably not consistent with a high level of repression of behaviour.
I’m not at all clear about these issues. But I do think that the analysis of the damage done needs to get quite specific as to exactly which of the wholesale rag-bag of changes we have seen in the last 50 years regarding relations between the sexes and approaches to family life have done exactly what damage. And it needs to produce a proper causal account of what it is and how exactly its been done.
Dalrock refers to “Today’s crop of young women are perilously close to as Zeets would say* presenting like a red-assed chimp.” Well, its a revealing aside in its denigration. Display in our species, unlike with peacocks, is primarily female. There is nothing wrong or surprising about it.
I read the reference, which seems to envisage this being wrong, and that experienced men will bring inexperienced women to sexual fullfilment.
Right, and who do they get this experience with?
George,
“Perhaps the way to make progress on it would be to disentangle our present approach and the changes that are being made.”
Often I have wished that I could put the toothpaste back into the tube. It’s far easier to destroy social norms ;; “liberation” — than to build them. Entropy.
I expect them to double down even triple down with no end in sight until reality forces them to stop.
Well, check out this article: “He Asked Permission to Touch, but Not to Ghost” by Courtney Sender, a story in the NYT: “A culture of consent, one woman argues, should be less about self-protection and more about genuine care for the other person.”
Info,
That’s a fantastic story. Thanks for posting!
But what does it mean? It’s too alien. She’s weird. He’s weird, at least as seen thru her eyes.
They hooked up and he moved on. That is the new normal now. This is what women wanted , to be sexually free. They got what they wanted and they are still not happy. Ugh.
Sven,
See today’s post about this!
Condemnation is exactly what the “campus mattress” needs. Nothing else will have any effect
How is falling fertility bad for the economy?
Peterman,
“How is falling fertility bad for the economy?”
I didn’t say “bad.” Let’s replay the tape: “disruptive to the economy although good for the ecology.”
An economy runs on certain assumptions. Changes in those is disruptive, which means problems if not properly planned for and managed. Much of our economy assumes population growth. Most obviously, social security, Medicare, and (to a lesser extent) private retirement systems are designed for a growing population — and will undergo severe stress if population shrinks.
Pingback: The bright light of nuclear fusion might burn away climate doomsters’ fears | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: The sensible mild of nuclear fusion may burn the fears of the local weather | Tech News