Wednesday, January 27, 2010

A Revolution in Paradise

On my most recent trip across the Atlantic, I was flipping through the free newspapers provided by the flirtatious flight attendants when the following train of thoughts started rushing through my mind.

The Economist had a front page piece on "woman power", commemorating the fact that women are about to become the majority of the American work force (they already are in several other Western countries).

The commentaries on the subject were surprisingly bearable, if not mildly interesting. Apparently, even within feminist circles it now gets noted that the original strive for gender-equalization conflicted with the reality of gender specificities. So far so good. What I had not fully realized is that this notion has flipped into a rather common movement of female supremacy, with women using "biological findings" to support the notion that some "feminine" qualities make them better suited for high profile positions.

The main economics course at the university I attended started with a professor stating (only half jokingly) that you could either make it to the several hours of lectures every week, or save the money on textbooks and subscribe to the Economist. It's a no b.s. news magazine. And that is because when money is on the table, even the biggest ideologue becomes rather rational real quick. Not surprisingly then, the commentary regarding female supremacy more than devastated that argument.

Given the strengths of the phenomena we are dealing with, I have no doubt that a hundred years from now, there will be little understanding for our society's struggle with the obvious:

Men and Women are different. 
Our natural gender roles are largely complimentary. There is no better or worse. 

(before you object - read on; I will deal with the issues you probably have in mind down the line)

It is fascinating to see that women increasingly realize that the original ideology of feminism isn't their actual cup of tea. Instead of following along with the feminist codex, women have decided to go cherry picking. The modern woman wants all the plus sides of "emancipation", such as her own income and free reign over her sex life. What she doesn't want is clothes that don't make her look and feel sexy, man hate and some other things that got promoted by the first generation of feminists.

And as a result of that - FANFARE! - feminists start thinking and writing like realist/masculinist/roissysphere/MRA/MGTOW bloggers!

Take these excerpts I got an article on "what went wrong" with feminism from The Telegraph (the other newspaper I read that day):

 "It started with Girl Power and has sunk into mindless hedonism. ... has sexual equality backfired?"

Sound familiar?

Yes, women have cherry picked their  "new rights" . To quote:

"In previous generations many women had to repress their physical needs and experiences in order to fall in with social conventions, and feminism was needed to release them from the cage of chastity,"

That was then. Women fought that successfully. Now we have:

"A generation of young girls is interpreting liberation as the right to ...  no-strings sex, celebrating one-night stands as notches on their designer handbags. For them, STDs are almost a badge of honour, eating disorders commonplace and men who talk of love and commitment are sneered at for "going soppy".

That is British for "silly"/"sentimental". Take that beta males!

Women now slut around happily  (with guys who are not "going soppy). Until they reach the late twenties and panik for husbandry that is. Women want money to buy stuff and are willing to work hard for it. Women want the studs and are willing to work hard for that, including eating disorders and plastic surgery.

So, young women want the no-commitment hotties. Lots of them. And they don't want any of that other crap that the old school feminists had in mind. But, of course, what the feminist author takes away from seeing what we all see, is a deep concern for "The Return of Sexism" - and thereby entirely drops the ball.

The point she is missing when contemplating modern slutism is the same point that feminism missed as a whole:

How does all of this affect men?

As I wrote above, the gender roles were there for a reason. The system worked. Each side brought something in, and got something out of the deal that is any social interaction.

One could argue that the deal was always biased in favor of women (as masterly done in the must read Dr. Farrell's "The Myth of Male Power"): Men in the role of bread givers were forced to work harder, fight more and die earlier. They also have no biological certainty in their offspring and therefore run the risk of investing all their resources (materially and emotionally) into another man's child - an evolutionary suicide. Men were as powerless as women (or had it even worse).

The fact that there was a "Rebellion in Paradise" - not by the weaker (male) side, but by the side that felt the most sexually repressed is telling about the powers of biological drive.

To be fair - women were sexually repressed and reliant on men for resources. And they did away with that dark side to their gender role.

But nobody did away with the dark side of the male gender role. Men are still expected to pay for dates (and children, and even their ex-wives), which results in men still choosing more profitable jobs and stress related disease. Women now are the majority of the work force while men are still the majority of the armed forces. The list is long.

And now women even did away with the sentimental men (until their late twenties that is). But the problem is not that they voluntarily subject themselves to sexism.
The problem is that they thereby cut off another slice of the ancient gender deal. As Lupo put it so eloquently:
"In ye olden days of yore, the post-30 woman would actually have given you the best years of her life: the pre-30 years. Instead, they generally give the best years of their life to the dong-carousel, and take it out on the poor saps who date them later in life."


  1. Shit, that Lupo quote made my day

  2. well, call me soppy but that quote is bs. Define "given". The only good reason to possibly be in an exclusive relationship is that the company of women who are into you is just outright pleasant. And I can't see how a semi-forcefully "giving" hag can be pleasant. Me so horny, me love you long time...
    There has to be some distinction between betas who are unattractive due to lack of skill/game/clue(red pill) and the the ones who settle to take this sort of giving. A lot of dominant but unpopular with girls men (paper alphas?) are in the latter category actually, not sure what to make of it.

  3. "Cherry picking": that's a perfect description not just for feminists but for just about any establishment institution, isn't it! If ancient Israelite laws included a single pro-feminist line, the feminists would happily quote it and ignore the rest...

  4. Stud dynamite
    A lot of dominant but unpopular with girls men (paper alphas?) are in the latter category actually, not sure what to make of it.

    With your definition, let me say that if I am in trouble, say a fight or a war, I would want to have that paper alpha covering my back rather than the non-paper alpha, woman-defined-alpha...

    I'd want to be beside an alpha man, rather than a sexual alpha.

    And also 11, I dont accept talks about the "oppression of female sexuality" unless it is accompanied by the notion of "full regulation of male sexuality by females"

    This is part of nature, and whatever society does, it will not eliminate this fact. As a whole women will always regulate male sexuality, unless a war kills of 30 or something percent of the men. That is the unsaid fact. The real dark side of sexuality.

    The somewhat regulation of women's sexuality tried to balance these, but being regulated by a third party (society vs women) is different than being directly regulated by the person one is interacting with (women vs men, and, additionally, society vs men)... One can be walked around, the other is absolute.

  5. Every material is based on Leykis 101.

  6. @ z.g. - I dont accept talks about the "oppression of female sexuality" unless it is accompanied by the notion of "full regulation of male sexuality by females".

    Valid point (I thought that'd be obvious).

    But I know that by and large we are on the same page here. We both see it as women having been "oppressed" in that they had to marry betas and sleep with them even if "the spark got lost" (or never was there in the first place).

    And in return for helping beta males by demanding women to fulfil their "marrital duties" combined with crushing down hard on adultresses, society asked these men to provide for the women even past their menopause when their sexual attractiveness turns from positive into negative.

    Now, women are "free" while men are still expected to deliver their part of the deal. I cannot remember an outrage such as that surrounding Tiger Woods about any cheating married wife.

    [Of course, all of that concerns non-alphas only. Genetics and our evolutionarily shapped behavior prove that there always are a few non-committal high status males who "flip the script" and chose women to sleep with and not the other way round.]

  7. a girl lamented the status of "entitled" and "demanding" women outside the bar tonight.

  8. Interesting and very Buddhist. A core belief is that men and women are equal, but different.


    Professional trading signals sent to your mobile phone every day.

    Follow our trades NOW and make up to 270% a day.