Dunbar Feminism
I think I should stop selling "behaviorism". By which I mean, I should stop calling what I sell "behaviorism". I shall call it "immediatism".
Basic points are: all politics are local. All cognition is local. Nothing is abstract. People behave so as to immediate conditions. Here's an example. Sweden.
http://www.government.se/government-policy/a-feminist-government/
Let me quote:
Sweden has the first feminist government in the world. This means that gender equality is central to the Government’s priorities – in decision-making and resource allocation. A feminist government ensures that a gender equality perspective is brought into policy-making on a broad front, both nationally and internationally. Women and men must have the same power to shape society and their own lives. This is a human right and a matter of democracy and justice. Gender equality is also part of the solution to society’s challenges and a matter of course in a modern welfare state – for justice and economic development. The Government’s most important tool for implementing feminist policy is gender mainstreaming, of which gender-responsive budgeting is an important component.
Feminism gender gender feminism power gender feminism. And first. You get the gist. They also had this sort of battle picture:
So you'd think these people will be very consistent feminists, and make a lot of policies to further the movement. And indeed, they are wreaking havoc in Sweden by doing retarded stuff like "feminist snow plowing", collapsing the whole transport system in the process. But then these feminists do things like this:
https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7/status/830579268027576321
https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7/status/830568651652730880
And so people start howling: you can't do this! What kind of feminist are you if put on a veil to pander to Muslims. Which is true of course, and this bunch of evil hags should be shamed as much as possible. But if you want to understand what is really going on, you gotta understand immediatism.
See, these Swedish middle aged women aren't feminist in the abstract. They are feminist in their local environment. Which means that there are in a power struggle against their men. Not men in the abstract. But Swedish men. Their husbands, their brothers and their fathers. It is them who they want to spite. And to spite them they adopt "feminism", i.e. they parrot feminist rhetoric, mostly imported from the USA. And the policies they adopt are tailored to fuck with Swedish men: like taking the snow out of the driveways that women walk, instead of the big roads that their men use to drive to work and transport stuff.
Iranian men just don't compute in whatever drives these people's behavior. Even the Muslim men who are slowly invading their country don't count for much. For all they care they aren't real people. They're just some abstraction you read about. Only the people in your Dunbar circle are real. So their "feminism" is about fucking with the men in their Dunbar circle. Anything else isn't actually there. It is often said that progressive rhetoric assumes that minorities don't really have agency. Everything is the fault of white men. Same thing. Progressives are in a power struggle against fellow white people: nobody else matters. "Agency" only exists in so far as progressives find it useful in order to achieve more power for themselves against their Dunbar-rivals.
And so when a Swedish prime minister goes to Iran, she puts the veil. Not because she's not a feminist: but because her feminism is an immediate concern, not an abstract principle. Far away from home, out of sight of her husbands, brothers and fathers who they want to spite, they can be themselves, and enjoy being in the company of real men who force them to behave like decent women. They actually enjoy this, obviously. But they will never admit so to their fellow men. There's two reasons for that. Often people say that is because their fellow men are beta, feminism is a shit test, the local people don't pass the shit test so women end up despising the men for it. But I don't think that's all the story. Point is, in the local environment, white women and men are rivals in a power struggle, and no quarter is given. No amount of alpha can solve that. Only alphas who are not part of the local power struggle can influence women. Of course the question is how to stop white women from being in a state of war against their men. But that isn't as easy as it sounds: Asian women give plenty of shit to Asian men, and even Muslim women are a pain in the ass in their own way. I guess only Afghans got that solved for good.
67 comments
replyWar in Byzantine's time was based on morale and manpower. Manpower because the larger army won, and morale because defeats weren't material defeats for whatever reason. Malthusian considerations perhaps - death is a virtue? Winning was simply a matter of not giving up first. Rome expanded largely because when they lost an army, they would go home and raise another until the other side gave up. Islam had tons of manpower because they allow polygamy. Lots of unchained young men who aren't getting their dicks wet unless they find an infidel to rape. Hence, when they raised armies, they were enormous. My first guess at the morale would be the delta between very humane Islam and inhumane Christianity. Islam expects a few empty rituals and then you can more or less indulge all your impulses. Christianity expects literally impossible things from you, and even says so. In any case, Christians weren't willing to carry out West Roman style genocides which are required to make Islam sit down and shut up. So the Mohammedans would simply raise another army and zerg rush the thing again. In modern times, manpower is almost useless. Technology and technique are all important, especially together. Imagine what it must be like to think "We are the chosen of Allah," but simultaneously to know that Mecca's continued existence depends on the grace and mercy of the Great Satan, America. Among other, minor powers. Cognitive dissonance? Honey, you don't know anything about it.
-
reply
[…] Penis Envy […]
-
reply
Icons are teaching devices for times when literacy rates were infinitesimal. They are intentionally rendered in an unrealistic style to avoid moving the passions rather than the rational mind. This is in contradistinction to the Western Church's later attempts to actively move the passions. An icon uses inverted perspective, things farther away get larger, because the infinite vanishing point is understood to be in the viewer's own heart. Your comments about the style of Byzantine icons is ill informed.
-
reply
Guilty as charged. Not a fan.
-
reply
I was going to say that because I have read books about Russian culture. The problem of the Internet is that everybody can say anything about an area that he doesn't know anything. See the ignorant commentary of Alrenous above, for an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect
-
reply
I still don't like icons and think my explanation is plausible.
-
reply
It's certainly a fancy excuse. "I can't draw for shit. What am I gonna say?" "Let's say we're not trying to excite the passions!" "Oh damn, nice one."
-
reply
Lol
-
reply
This is largely correct. I spent 10 years as an Orthodox monk (now Catholic). Huge amounts of Othodox lore and opinion have developed in the last few centuries as little more than anti-Latin revisionism and ex post facto rationalizations of the failure to understand and employ the continuing developments of Western Civilization. The Council of Florence proved that Byzantium had lost the capacity for this, and not that it was simply aloof and "too good" for this. That said, I will concede that the dawn of Modernism in the West did wreak an important impoverishment on the Western cultus: it led to an increasingly diminished sense of the supernatural, the loss of a peculiarly sacred (i.e., "set apart") form of art, and the bringing down of sacred barriers in the churches (chancel/rood screens, baldochin and tabernacle veils, etc. Similar things occurred in Othodox Churches, though aesthetical and anti-Latin animus are prompting a reversal.
-
reply
If you don't mind my asking, why did you convert?
-
reply
>Huge amounts of Othodox lore and opinion have developed in the last few centuries as little more than anti-Latin revisionism and ex post facto rationalizations of the failure to understand and employ the continuing developments of Western Civilization. Yeah right, use 19th century Uniate propaganda in place of actual argument. People who are actually interested in the subject rather in grinding gears can easily read what ancient fathers wrote on the issues. But I suppose that it's easier to argue in good old "Latin" fashion: create a forgery and then accuse your enemies of being forgers Donatio Constantini style.
-
reply
[…] Source: Bloody Shovel […]
-
reply
Islam is the solution we do not want, but will probably get. Maybe we can invent a Christianity that steals the best of Islam, while decorating it with some norse stuff in place of that middle eastern stuff.
-
reply
If the Druse could I don't see why we can't.
-
reply
Basically the religion I promote on my blog. Hell and damnation, heavenly rewards like torturing the enemies of God with your own hands for all eternity, polygyny (four wives is NOT enough!), patrilineality, but unlike Islam it allows for euthanasia, just like the Norse religion. If Christians brag about defeating Odinism, then state that it more or less rose from the dead recently. And nowadays too many people, both Christian and non-Christian, are aware that Christianity teaches you to turn the other cheek. The combination of hell and euthanasia makes it possible to maim your enemies, and then rub them in that their own religion forbids euthanasia, while ours allows it. Nevertheless, a solid knowledge of Arabic is still necessary for victory.
-
reply
That’s an actual like by Yongzheng emperor when been asked by a Chinese minister about Muslim misbehavior, by the way.
Did they have Facebook in ancient China?
-
reply
My hands are so fast my typos jump 2 keys at once.
-
reply
"The icon-painter guild was *very* stubborn." Funnily enough, the Byzantine Empire is dead, while icon-painters in the traditional mode (complete with ritual purification before and after, use only of materials and modes approved by timeless Tradition, etc.) are still around. Proving that the Byzantines were wrong; God likes icons. More than he liked Byzantium. Apropos of your point, it is entirely correct. Western civilization will become healthy again if and only if men begin directing women in manly fashion. Which is why our current milieu spends so much time emasculating men, starting before they're born.
-
reply
♫ We don't need no petti-coating, We don't need no test- control, Feminism in the classroom, Hey, schoolmarm, leave those boys alone! All in all you're just another cuck in the wall. ♪
-
reply
[…] Dunbar Feminism […]
-
reply
I would suggest that its unsolvable - the gender war is ever-present en masse and seen in non-human animals as well. Its why you get either a patriarchy or a matriarchy, but never equality.
-
reply
Can you shoot me an email, please?
-
reply
Done.
-
reply
Clearly delineated gender roles seem to work. There's an undercurrent of feminism in orthodox Judaism, but only (from what I've seen) on its left edge. Western women don't know how to be women. They want structure that is lacking in our culture (not an issue when they were farm wives). I hung around with stay at home moms for a couple of years, and they all desperately wanted someone to tell them the correct way to do everything. They're mimicry machines with nothing to mimic, hence feminism.
-
reply
[…] Source: Bloody Shovel […]
-
reply
> Of course the question is how to stop white women from being in a state of war against their men. But that isn’t as easy as it sounds: Asian women give plenty of shit to Asian men, and even Muslim women are a pain in the ass in their own way. I guess only Afghans got that solved for good. Nature gives women all the power. All a man can do is kill you, but a woman can make you immortal. It is thus quite difficult to impose patriarchy and to keep patriarchy. It is in the nature of women to struggle for power, not because they actually want power (they reproduce most successfully if enslaved outright) but as a shit test, to filter for the strong man. Which filter may well be carried out most successfully if the men in their society who are incapable of controlling their women are conquered and exterminated, and the men of a more virile and manly society carry the women off into slavery. On the other hand, in eighteenth century England, patriarchy worked fine. But the mechanism is hard to perceive because it was largely enforced by non state institutions, and people of the time took it for granted like the air that they breathed. The imposition of patriarchy becomes more visible in late eighteenth century Australia, because, due to social breakdown, the state imposed it. The key is to stop women from playing one man against another by stopping them from fucking around. The key measure is to impose chastity on women. Also the state in Australia enforced the marital oath that the women honors and obeys, and the man loves and cherishes - well, cannot really enforce honor, but can enforce obey and no talking back, and cannot really enforce cherish, but can enforce that the man takes care of his wife and kids. But the key step was to stop women from fucking around. Women get their power from the possibility or actuality that they might fuck this man, or that man, or the other man. If you put a stop to that, then you depower women. It is not that sex is bad, it is that continuing female choice is bad. Sex produces babies. Continuing female choice produces female power, which produces cat ladies and cats.
-
reply
Ah, that explains why women who have gone through menopause lose all social and political influence whatsoever.
-
reply
I always likes S.A.M Adshead remark that traditional Chinese culture was so patriarchal that in the end it was the grandmother who held the most power, because grandpa was likely either dead or bored, and the father always obeys his mother.
-
reply
Single women past menopause do in fact suffer massive loss of power.
-
reply
Very ugly females (with whom no-one would want to reproduce) shouldn't find ways to exert influence even in their 20s and 30s, if so. But we know that they can (specially in the feminism department). The post-menopause rule applies to non-ugly women.
-
reply
At menopause single women do in fact suffer massive loss of power, though it seems to take them a while to realize it.
-
reply
Imagine a wifman writes an anti-patriarchy law and sends a wifman cop to arrest the patriarch found in violation.
-
reply
A good post, but this part gives me pause: "Far away from home, out of sight of her husbands, brothers and fathers who they want to spite, they can be themselves, and enjoy being in the company of real men who force them to behave like decent women." I think it's more "being nice to the foreigners by respecting their ways," a politeness which, of course, seems to be lacking when it comes to their actions towards Swedish males.
-
reply
That is just a pious rationalization. White nominally Christian female tourists visiting a white nominally Christian foreign country shit test far less, and less severely, than in their home town.
-
reply
I think we are in basic agreement. I am just suggesting that this matches standard modern progressive thinking: that political correctness is just "good manners." (Though of course they don't apply the same rules when dealing with the domestic "patriarchy.")
-
reply
These women are destroying themselves; they have no power. They are going away, they do not reproduce themselves, they are a genetic failure, they are from a country in terminal decline, and they will be replaced by other types of women and other types of cultures. They are simply cowards, who are afraid of attacking brown patriarchy, because that will be racist. And racism is far bigger sin that sexism, because WW2, when tens of millions died, was fought over race, not over gender. Racism trumps sexism. A white woman can not criticize a brown man. They are done, they are irrelevant, they will not exist in the future and are only good for a good laugh. As i accidentally found out, women are not destined to have power in human societies, because they do not understand human group relations. Studies found that women understand only close interpersonal relations, but unlike men, they do not understand very well human group relations, such as inter-racial relations, inter-religious relations, inter-ethnic relations, etc. Men care about their tribe, women do not. A tribe can not survive if those who rule over it do not care about it. A feminised society means an open society. Open to all types of hostiles, parasites, or invaders. Men are the immune system of society, women are not. In other words, feminised societies destroy themselves by excessive xenophilia, negative birth rate, and open borders/open legs for everyone. In my artice here, i found how feminism destroys itself, and why barbarism will be the last stage of feminism. My finding was that feminisation of society directly leads to third-worldization of society, the spread of low IQ people, and possible collapse and disappearance of the feminised group. http://diversitymachtfrei.blogspot.bg/2016/05/the-problem-with-feminism-why.html The article is large and it contains enormous information, references, voting patterns, video clips, and studies about female behavior. I believe that my study will be very helpful for men here to understand what is happening to us and our countries, why is it happening, and what is the role of women in all of this.
-
reply
This theory has merit, but how does it explain the American situation? I contend that it doesn't. Those progressive media people having conniptions over an offhand negative mention of Evola, those women marching in Washington wearing full-body cunt costumes, those scientists like Peter Woit, Terry Tao and probably Scott Aaronson - they haven't got anybody in their Dunbar circle whose opinion differs from theirs by more than an epsilon. Who are they sticking it up to? Is Ezra Klein sticking it to his Slate reporter wife Lowrey? Or is she sticking it to him? Or both?
-
reply
You'll notice you're speaking of men.
-
reply
" I guess only Afghans got that solved for good." Which, to me, did read as "you should be proud Spandrell has considered banning you". (And maybe I should change sides, read Slate and vote Democrats? What if THIS Afghans-got-that-solved minded people actually came to hold the main levers?)
-
reply
I don't mean the solution is a desirable one. But if you take pride of my threatening a ban, I shall make you even prouder by actually banning you.
-
reply
What IS the solution Afghans used? And why is it actually working, if nothing else ever worked?
-
reply
Same as the solution that the Christians of Timor Leste used. Women on Timor Leste cannot own property and must always be under male supervision and authority. Any woman not under male authority and supervision is a whore.
-
reply
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/the-view-is-mind-rot/ Excerpt: "Handy Translation: “Now that we American feminists have completely neutered our men into submission we secretly get moist for the Saracen barbarians who would put us in our legs-spread, ass-up place. And we can perfectly rationalize this under the rubric of multiculturalism." Written in 2007.
-
reply
There coexist 2 impulses, urges if you will, in the female mind: power (they're still humans with an amount of testosterone, after all) and subjection to power. People like these "career women" are high on the first of the two impulses: they try to satisfy it most of the time... but then, on the side, they feel the need for their subjection. Less testosterwomen are contented with ruling over their husbands offspring. Still less T whose core impulse is submission women crave an authoritarian bully, or an "alpha" in monkeyblogsphere jargon. Or they convert to Islam because "our society gives too much latitude to women", as I once saw a Western woman say.
-
reply
"I guess only Afghans got that solved for good." And who knows what goes on behind closed doors there?
-
reply
[…] Dunbar Feminism. A new and immediately compelling thesis: all feminism (and possibly by corollary all […]
-
reply
[…] Photos of “tough guy” female Swedish politicians, then photos of them walking with smiles past a Muslim man, while they wear hijabs or whatever. […]
-
reply
[…] Then there’s Canadian tough guy lesbian politician, who visited a mosque and was told by the imam, you have to sit quietly in the corner because the men are praying, and you have to wear a hijab, and you have to sit aside there until we let you know we’re finished. And she did! She meekly sat there, as ordered by a man. (Link with photo.) […]
-
reply
[…] recently wrote a post on Dunbar feminism. The idea is applicable to many aspects of life, including politics. Dunbar politics. People are […]
-
reply
You have caused me to have an epiphany good sir. This is why the white middle class feminist types - or at least the one's who don't have to live paycheck to paycheck for whatever the reason, never have a problem with "misogyny" when it comes to people not from their "area" or at least country and ethnic group. Hispanic men tend to be very sexually aggressive. It's a cultural thing. Engage in the same manner in New York and you'll likely be labeled some kind of aggressor providing you aren't Hispanic. Now apply this to the rest of ethnic and racial "minorities" as to their means of getting a girl and the roles they see for each gender in their particular conclave. It's why these Swedish Jezebels wear hijabs in Iran, but certainly won't do the dishes because of who it's for and where it is.
-
reply
Glad to help.
-
reply
Those "gotcha!" videos posted by white feminists---of men aggressively whistling at or hitting on the women while they walk down the street---show mostly swarthy men doing the whistling. It usually takes a Super Woke White Woman to point out the incipient racism of the white feminists' videos: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx\_factor/2014/10/29/catcalling\_video\_hollaback\_s\_look\_at\_street\_harassment\_in\_nyc\_edited\_out.htmlhttps://twitter.com/rgay/status/527470600261218304 Though here's an honest black woman on the subject: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/when-it-comes-to-street-harassment-we-need-to-talk-about-race-10475120.html In other words, some women do initially put gender equality above all else, even if it means calling out both their own (white) menfolk as well as other races' menfolk. To be sure, such women are typically shamed into rejecting that kind of Principled Equality in favor of Who/Whom and locality-based principle shifting.
-
reply
Is there anything you would elaborate on this theory since the Marie Le Pen incident, which I saw soon after I read this article? Obviously she wouldn't be classified as a feminist as the Swedish women are/claim to be. But she is still a part of 'white men and women are rivals in a power struggle'. Why do you think she used the exact same opportunity to send a contrary message? Is she simply more loyal to her political identity than her female identity? Is she signalling to her group/locale what she understands to be a loyal Right-wing approach (ie. fuck the Arabs and their ways)? Its all so confusing...
-
reply
Of course she is. Pretty basic signaling. Too obvious, really.
-
reply
Modern West is highly Byzantine. The Byzantines survived largely by playing one enemy against another, to prevent them from ganging up, intentionally or by accident, on Byzantium. It is necessary for a continental power. The Left similarly plays one of its enemies against another. Currently, Islam vs. Conservatism. The difference being it plays against internal enemies instead of external ones. Or, more bluntly, sand ninjas and ninjas vs. responsible snow ninjas.
-
reply
[…] Spandrell adds a couple of cents and a graph to the on-going discussion of the Cost Disease. The lesbian Premier of Ontario meets a strong hand of Islam: Penis Envy. […]
-
reply
[…] She sub-communicates disloyalty towards the men in her tribe. She is allying with far to destroy near. It’s Dunbar feminism. […]
-
reply
Perhaps this was the correct place to make this comment rather than on what is now your latest post, Power. Feel free to delete my comment on that post. Here is the latest innovation in Feminism http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411 What the Fuck is After-Birth Abortion? This is really cutting edge stuff I must say, literally and Figuratively. Can’t wait to see what you have to say about this. I really think your thoughts on this merit their own post. Can there be such a thing as a feminist singularity or is it merely a subset of the leftist singularity.
-
reply
[…] she has demography and the long arc of moralized history on her side; she believes that one day all (white) racist patriarchs and their memory will be abolished. It will take time to digest and expel the […]
-
reply
[…] has demography and the long arc of moralized history on her side; she believes that one day all (white) racist patriarchs and their memory will be abolished. It will take time to digest and expel the […]
Are you absolutely sure that manpower is useless now? ISIS appears to be doing remarkably well despite their lack of technology, and on the political field, the side that can gather the numbers to yell is remarkably effective.
The side that's being funded by America isn't doing so bad? Weird. I'll have to have a think about that one.
We have the weaponry to wipe out the most muslims in days and mop up the rest within a year if we applied ourselves. But we lack the will to destroy our enemies and preserve our own people.
And if all our women rejected feminism, we would largely not be in this situation. It helps, I think, to be realistic about such situations and try to use their social technology to our advantage.
And that social technology starts with a healthy fear of eternal damnation. BTW, according to the Wager of Pascal, fearing eternal damnation is in itself very sensible.
Just to firm this up: Alrenous above said that manpower was irrelevant in current conflicts. Morale still very much isn't.
Also, Revenge is Sour. If the West had the will to wipe out Muslims, they wouldn't really count as an enemy and wiping them out would be unnecessary. "...you sure you want to do that?" and presto, they find that in fact they don't want to any more. Maybe a minimum of Darwinian selection would be necessary...