I’m going to look at socialism from a little different perspective than you get from most views on it. And what is that perspective? It can be described simply as “When The State Is Her Husband”. But first I’d like you to watch a movie. The movie is a version of a play that is over 400 years old. After you have watched it I will have a few comments. It is two hours of your time well spent. Elisabeth Taylor and Richard Burton in The Taming Of The Shrew.
OK. Back with me? Marriage is an economic cooperation that insures the continuity of the human race when agriculture replaces the hunter gatherer form of economy. Women become property of their husband to reduce the incidence of female hypergamy. Or in the crude terms more frequently seen around “Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks”. Or why women go for bad boys.
For a long time the problem of female hypergamy was acute for the upper classes. Upper class women had their daddys to fall back on. And now women of all classes (especially those who can’t extract large sums of money and the slavery of a man in “no fault” divorce) have Uncle Sugar to fall back on.
But men are not real happy about this state of affairs. And so we see the Grass Eaters of Japan and the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) “movements” in the west. It is also commonly referred to as the marriage strike. Or the decline of marriage.
Marriage is no longer a good deal for men. So they are dropping out. Not even Timothy Leary could accomplish in a significant and lasting way what feminism has accomplished around the world.
What would I do about all that? Just one thing. End no fault divorce. Because women looking for that bad boy or wanting to trade up initiate 70% of divorces and there is some evidence that they get men to initiate the divorce in another 20% of the cases. Hypergamy in action.
Well OK. Things are bad. But not much worse than they were for the upper classes 400 years ago. So what does The Taming Of The Shrew teach us about all that? Women want to be dominated by a man. Not in some evil way. But they want strong men. Or the appearance of strength at least. And so there has grown up on the net a community that teaches that. It is variously called PUAs (Pick Up Artists) or Game. It is all explained in the movie made from a play over 400 years old.
Which leads me to an interesting story. I was taught “Game” back in 1962 by my very first girlfriend. I was 18 and she was an ancient 22. Her hobby was first timers. Virgins. Lucky me. I had all the usual “beta” stuff you saw in the movies. Bring her flowers. Give her gifts. Grovel before her. She wasn’t having any of that. She wanted to be dominated and showed me how to do it. Basically it is the technique explained in Richard Feynman’s “Surely You Are Joking Mr. Feynman”. More or less a man takes the attitude that he is God’s gift to women and she is lucky to have him. There is much more to it than that. It requires continuous study and you have to adapt your “game” to each particular woman. But that is the essence of it. Joan broke my heart by falling for another guy. But she did leave me with some very valuable lessons. Thank you Joan.
I think my knowledge of “game” is in part what has kept me and the first mate together for 39 years so far. She has never lost interest in me. But I will admit – it is a full time job. As the movie shows – not every man or even most men are up for it. The current situation I think will change that. And the culture will revert to a more male centric idea of marriage when Uncle Sugar goes broke. Socialism and the waves of feminism that supported it have nearly destroyed us. Thank the Maker for the ‘net.
And here let me add this disclaimer. I do not favor going back to a system like Islam where women are the property of men. I do favor an end to no fault divorce. And DNA tests for paternity in child support cases. No man should be required to support another man’s children. Learn how the world really works and choose wisely.
All this was prompted by a discussion I was having at I’m A Fan Of Traditional Marriage.
For further reading may I suggest The Misandry Bubble and also A Poll On The Misandry Bubble.
The Misandry Bubble opens with:
Why does it seem that American society is in decline, that fairness and decorum are receding, that socialism and tyranny are becoming malignant despite the majority of the public being averse to such philosophies, yet the true root cause seems elusive? What if everything from unsustainable health care and social security costs, to stagnant wages and rising crime, to crumbling infrastructure and metastasizing socialism, to the economic decline of major US cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore, could all be traced to a common origin that is extremely pervasive yet is all but absent from the national dialog, indeed from the dialog of the entire Western world?
Definitely a good read.
Update 1337z 27 November 2013
This short obituary of second wave “feminist” Shulamith Firestone pretty much explains how we got where we are today. Basically she advocates for the suicide of civilization. Unfortunately she has died before her ugly dream came true. We, however, are going to have to live through the consequences of her dreams.
Comments
14 responses to “Nature, Men, And Women”
While homo sapiens have quite complex social structures and interactions, we are still evolved living organisms subject to certain instincts that are coded in our genes through thousands of generations of natural selection. Furthermore, this coding of instincts is different in men and women, generally speaking.
I find it ironic that those people who are most likely to ignore evolutionary or natural social orders and support modern social structures are the folks that believe abiogenesis and evolution to be fact. Conversely, those that speak in favor of traditional gender roles tend to be those that think evolution didn’t happen. An interesting paradox IMO. For the record, I’m not a creationist.
On a related tangent, I marvel at those who decry pre-marital sex without seeing the social order that we’ve created almost guarantees men and women will be sexually active before marrying. Just a few generations ago, men and women often married in their middle to late teens. But with the advent of modern education requirements and the notion one should not marry until your done with your education, more and more people are postponing marriage until their early to late twenties. We are asking a lot from our young when some of us expect sexual abstinence during a time when the hormones are most active, and expect them to delay sexual intimacy until marriage in their twenties.
With that said,I agree with the gist of your post, Simon. More and more people are noticing that modern social structures are producing a raw deal for more and more men.
I don’t know what the answers are, but understanding there is a problem is the first step toward finding solutions.
Pretty sure I don’t need to seize the means of reproduction. I was born with half of it.
Two more places where female dominance is destroying institutions:
Public schools where boys are treated like criminals and disease bearers for acting like boys and turned into drugged zombies, and
Tech firms where the personnel office is a hen party run by bimbos too stupid to be the above mentioned school teachers.
Randy: Darwinian evolution, natural selection and inherent biological differences apply to absolutely all of the entire natural world EXCEPT for human biodiversity in the liberal mind set.
And yet Libertarians will sabotage any Traditional Conservative, or any other version of Conservatve, running for office if that candidate has expressed an opinion other than wild bohemian. If that helps elect a quasi-socialist, oh well. At least the Libertarian has publicly displayed his ideological purity. If the candidate himself hasn’t come out in favor of some traditional social arrangement all that is needed to warrant Libertarian sabotage is to find someone somewhere leaving a comment that might be voting for the candidate.
Scott M,
Well let me see. In the period of 1900 to 1930 a faction of Traditional Conservatives were allied with the Progressives. Alcohol and drug Prohibition were the result.
That faction then absorbed the Republican Party when they fell out with Progressives.
And what habit did they bring to the Party? Large Government (to the small government Party) and “we can control you”.
If TradCons wanted to leave people alone they would be libertarians.
TradCons are socialists. Moral socialists. And moral socialism has become a laughing stock.
Your problem is that you think we have two parties with an opposing political philosophy. Nope. They just disagree on which area of life they wish to dominate.
@Scott M–
Does the term “RINO” mean anything to you? It’s the derisive term social conservatives use to describe those Republicans that don’t subscribe 100% to the social conservative agenda and dogmas. So spare us your jibes about ideological purity, your type are famous for insisting on it.
The ham-fisted way many conservative pols approach certain issues are a non-starter for centrist voters. For example, many pro-life Republican pols have expressed their unwillingness to carve out any “safe harbor” abortion exceptions for women who would find themselves impregnated due to rape or incest, should these pols have the ability to re-cast the abortion laws to their liking. That “no compromise” position for these rare pregnancies put on display an attitude that is uncaring for those women that would find themselves in that rare circumstance. To me, politicians that hold that view are moral monsters in that they are willing to inflict unnecessary emotional harm onto women that have suffered enough already.
I could make several other points, but I’m tired. The socons like you and many others need to understand that in majoritarian politics, you can only go as far as the political middle is willing to go. The political middle is not with the socons on their issues, for the most part. It seems to me that socons (like you) would rather lose elections and maintain your ideological purity, rather win elections by focusing on those issues that resonate with voters in both the political middle and in the conservative camp.
Cheers.
@Man Mountain Molehill–
Thanks for restating my thoughts about the liberal mind and evolution much more succinctly than I did. And I agree with the two points you made.
When I hear the term “biodiversity” I reach for my skepticism.
Simon-A point of order, from someone with a family history of Republican Progressives.
The Teddy Roosevelt Progressives did not melt back into the Republican Party as social conservatives. They either became Democrats or Rockefeller Republicans (RINOs). Today’s social conservatives are largely rednecks, i.e. Scots-Irish former Democrats, or Germans who were culturally influenced in the Scots-Irish direction.
America is a big, funny, tangled-up culture.
Man Mountain Molehill–
Do not underestimate the HR lady. She will keep your engineer ass from hiring a real no-goodnik. But do not let her write the job description.
That is all.
Neil,
The Republican Party of 1914 was a libertarian party. Mostly.
I have done some study on the matter. And came to the conclusion that the religious progressives (TradCons) moved to the Republican Party after a falling out with the secular Progressives over economic issues.
If you have a different understanding I’m all ears. If you have links – even better.
Neil,
Fire HR:
http://www.ecnmag.com/blogs/2013/05/fire-human-resources
[…] Even better! (b) “Women are socialists. … I have more to say on that here – with lots of links: Nature, Men, And Women.” […]
[…] generation fights these battles anew. I touched on that in a more or less non-political topic at Nature, Men, And Women. Print PDF Categories: Uncategorized 0 […]
Perfect. I’ve been looking for a site that can put these ideas in a clear easy to digest form and this looks like it. I will be directing some blue pillers here very shortly.
Cheers Simon