The Wars of the Sexes
What do Bronze Age Pervert and Brett Kavanaugh have in common?
https://twitter.com/bronzeagemantis/status/1044336637801615360
Not a lot. One is a nudist bodybuilder, a tropical Nietzsche who wants to burn the cities and reduce women to breeding stock. The other is a pasty Irish Catholic Yale graduate who was pretty much a virgin until his marriage at age 40, and to this day can't help crying like a girl when referring to the women "friends" during his life who gave him the slightest amount of attention.
Imagine these two guys in the same room. Would they get along? I don't think so. And yet here we are, in this strange world where not only BAP, but millions of people in and outside the internet defending this Irish cuck and his all-female team of legal clerks. So what’s going on?
Let’s talk about the Women Question (WQ). The WQ is the realization among a few select men of intelligence that female emancipation has been a complete and utter disaster for civilization. What started rather innocently with giving limited economic rights to women (having a bank account, inheriting property) has spiraled in less than two centuries into a full fledged war of the sexes, making life miserable for hundreds of millions. And most importantly, depressing the birth rate of the most valuable people on earth.
It used to be that genes for better strength and health, for higher intelligence, for physical beauty, made you leave more offspring, while the unfortunate carriers of genes that made you unhealthy, ugly or stupid were unable to reproduce themselves. Well not anymore. The best people on earth today are all, thanks to the open sexual market of all against all (the extension du domain de la lutte of Houellebecq’s first novel) brought by female emancipation, squeezing themselves into big global cities, competing for status in a non-stop rat race which makes family formation impossible. They thus fail to have babies to inherit their precious genes, wasting them into these massive IQ shredders which dominate the modern world. I called them IQ shredders as IQ is the most pressing concern (no IQ no electricity, folks), but it’s really shredding all the genes of excellence that mother nature has spent millennia making for us.
This is not exactly a race thing, as it’s genes for excellence themselves which are being wasted in the global status rat race. It’s not just Indians or Africans outbreeding Whites. It’s the worst blacks and the worst Indians outbreeding the best of their kind. The first ethnic group to literally go extinct due to feminism won’t be any European people: it would be the Parsis, long the highest-performing ethnic group in the whole of India. They are actually going extinct because their women would rather take PhDs than make babies. And they do that because women don’t actually like most men. Women are wired to like the top 10-20% of men, “top” meaning bigger, stronger and more violent. It’s how it works in most mammals, you can’t argue with 500 million years of evolution. Hate the game, not the player.
If you think this doesn’t concern you, you’re wrong. The whole Western world is slowly morphing into having the demographics of Brazil, roughly half white, half black. But Brazil itself is shedding its best people. The next step there is South Africa, 10% white. But again we know what’s going on with South Africa and their planned dispossession of its white population. You know what comes after South Africa? The endgame is Haiti. If feminism isn’t stopped and reversed, the whole world will be Worldwide Haiti (WWH). Now think of that.
So what do we do? Opposition to feminism has a long history, but as feminism advanced from demanding equal rights to achieving effective supremacy, more and more men are noticing what’s going on, and are growing apprehensive at the dispossession of the male sex and the likely coming of Worldwide Haiti. I see four kinds of reaction to late-stage feminism.
Play the game. When playing a game in hard mode, some people quit. Some people take the challenge and master it. In the sexual game, they learn Game. Seduction techniques. Become an alpha, what women want. You read [Heartiste](http://heartiste.wordpress.com/), go on learning how to pick up women. Pump and dump. It’s a risky game to play, but rewards are high. If the man is so inclined it might lead to a successful taming of a woman and the production of good children. In other cases it leans to decadence and long-term misery. It’s not an ideal solution, in that it doesn’t quite solve feminism, and in fact provokes women into further escalating their demands for supremacy in order to rein down on men. Remember, women don’t want “good men”. They went the statistical “best men”. They just want the top 20% alphas. Faking an alpha is a short terms solution that only leads women to recalibrate their algorithms to come up with a new 20%. But hey, as pointless as it often is, as a man I can only respect the man who takes up the challenge and beats the game in hard mode. Now I don’t know how to call this strategy. I could just call it the BAP strategy. Or the Mishima strategy. Maybe call it Retreat, Regroup and Entice. Strategic Withdrawal. Or Sexual Cannae. Perhaps the best name would be the Mannerbund Strategy. Ever since the Industrial Revolution broke the equilibrium of the sexes in the civilized world, and brought men into the cities and into wage labor, plenty of people have deplored the effect this had on men, becoming effeminate and weak. Amusingly many of those who complained have been homosexual, as the leaders of the German Wandervogel in 19th century, or Mishima in 1960s Japan, or Jack Donovan in present America. This makes sense; homosexuals like real, strong men, even more so than women do, give their higher sex drive. While Bioleninism has been taking care of homosexuals of late, in a purely sexual way, homosexuals are the biggest victims of the dispossession of men and state-mandated effeminacy since the 1800s.
Of course not all of the strategic withdrawalists have been homosexuals; Nietzsche obviously comes to mind. At any rate, their idea is that men should recover their masculinity, go back not to pre-industrial times, but to the heyday of manhood, the culture where were not only in charge, their were heroic, and even beautiful. Ancient Greece. The Greeks just didn’t saw much of a point in women, for them men were just perfect, got things done, were fun to be with, and were beautiful to see even. Women were annoying and not even that good looking. So what Greek fans argued is that, if women are gaining power and annoying men, men should withdraw, live together, form mannerbunds and do their own manly things. Have fun and stop caring about women at all.
That’s fine and all. And in the 1920s and 30s, these male aesthetes were in some way responsible for the uber-manly fascist movements in Europe. The Nazis, and especially their armed forces, the SA, were full of crypto-homos such as Ernst Röhm. And they carried the day; Europe was this close to fall into communist horror, and it was only the handsome paramilitary armies of the post-Wandervogel boys that saved Western Europe from communism. So cheers to them. Homos saved Europe from communism once because they found mass rallies of armed muscular men arousing. And… then they were purged, with long knives. Cheers to that too.
While mannerbunds sound like real fun, they’re not quite clear on how that solves the feminism problem. Well yes, Mannerbunds are different from omega MGTOWs in that the latter are invisible to women anyway, but the former, by the sheer size and hardness of their abdominal muscles, have a way of making women crazy.
But still, getting women horny doesn’t solve the issue of producing quality babies if you don’t actually go through the trouble of impregnating them. Which you can’t in any civilized country, not if you want to stay in the mannerbund, given women’s legal power to enforce serfdom to the genetic father of any of her babies.
While I sympathize with the idea, and hope history remembers me as the man who provided the theoretical justification for destroying IQ shredders and salting the land, for better or worse, we don’t live in the Bronze Age anymore, and omegas married to their pillows are likely to be more useful at Razing the Cities through their knowledge of programming or nuclear engineering than Mannerbund Aesthetes with expertise in ancient art history.
The question remains, though: what can we do? How do we prevent Worldwide Haiti? Bring back the patriarchy? A subset of strategy 1, marriage, is trying to recreate a patriarchy inside an isolated society. A well known example is the Benedict Option, by religious-shopper Rod Dreher. The idea is that people should isolate from mainstream progressive society and try to pull a medieval Benedictine hill monastery kind of trick, and do their own thing in blessed isolation. A long but insightful review of the book by veteran blogger Handle can be found here.
The Benedict Option is a really misleading naming for what should have been plainly called “The Amish strategy”. Because that’s what you need to keep your women in control. The Amish have a patriarchy alright. They even get progressive journos sent to document how evil and patriarchal they are. But they are left alone, for some reason. Doesn’t mean any neo-Amish movement starting from scratch would be. And that’s assuming any woman born in our feminist supremacist society would actually join in. The Amish are already there, after all, and nobody’s joining them.
The patriarchy only evolved in places where the local ecology made necessary the hard labor of men for survival. Places where women couldn’t feed themselves. Places with cold winters. Places where you needed granaries to store food for the winter, and men to guard those granaries from enemy peoples. In those places men got to rule, because what were women going to do anyway? They would starve and freeze without a man.
And so a system was set where every single women was subject to a man, either her husband or her father. Sexual access to women (and her labor, which was often quite useful at home) required a lifelong contract, or else. Now some patriarchies allowed polygamy. Europe didn’t. But the general point that women were subject to men was respected; and that was what kept most men with skin in the game, willing to contribute their productive labor to society at large.
That was just a function of the economy. There’s plenty of places where women can feed themselves without men. Warm, tropical places. You don’t have patriarchies in those places, unless a northern tribe conquered them and kept it by cultural inertia. You never get a matriarchy, women are never physically strong enough nor organized enough to rule over men. But you do get matrilineal and matrilocal societies: places where women do their thing, feed themselves, fuck who they want, and interact with men mostly on the women’s terms. The Chinese call one of these matrilineal hill tribes as having 走婚, walking marriage. Because the women live all with their womenfolk, sex happens when a man walk to the woman’s house, screws her, and then leaves. The kid belongs to the mother’s house, the couple can break at each other’s whim (though there’ll plenty of nagging and gossip in the village), and the guy may or may not feed the child depending on how much of an asshole he is. He usually is.
That's how society worked in much of Africa and Southeast Asia; women lived in their own villages, fed themselves. Men live with other men, have their cool mannerbund where they dress up and decorate themselves and work out and fight a lot, come and go to women's villages now and then to exchange food and sex. Of course it's not that easy going; it's heavily ritualized with festivals and ceremonies and so on, and sex pairings are supposed to be exclusive unless something goes wrong. The [late Henry Harpending had a great writedown](http://the10000yearexplosion.com/human-cultural-diversity/">had a hilarious write down) of this sort of societies, and how men and women relate to each other in the absence of a pressing need for marriage, as in winter societies.
That’s where we’re moving now. That’s the sort of society that arises when women can feed themselves. Of course our societies today are much worse than that. During the transition to a female-centered society, women want to have it both ways: they want the freedom of a tropical society, but they also want the amenities of a patriarchal civilized society. Every day they see their standard of living dropping as men refuse to marry them and pay for women’s lifestyles, women nag and cry about how evil men are. Well, that’s how it works. You can get to chase Chad to your heart’s content. You already do, and it’s been a thing in tropical societies for tens of thousands of years. But what you don’t get is to chase Chad and get Dad to pay for it.
https://twitter.com/Cicerone973/status/1045813263152422912
Matrilineal societies have reasonable fertility rates, even today, so the total collapse of sex relations in modern civilized societies is probably more a function of the slow motion breakdown of the patriarchy and women knowing they’re screwed either way, than just a function of female choice. Women do like babies. They just want to have yours. And they want to travel too. And have a career. Aah! I can’ even.
Can we go back to a patriarchy? We could. I guess the Mannerbund proponents envision a small army growing steadily, first a dozen kids, then one hundred, then one million, then revolting, razing the cities, conquering the world. That would work.
Absent that, though, capitalism is here to stay, female labor is 90% bullshit but still 10% useful. Most importantly, food is cheap. Women can feed themselves either way. They didn’t like the patriarchy, they won’t go back without force; force that men just don’t have the organizational power to apply. The alphas are having a lot of fun, after all. A solution would be to flank the female army and come up with some technological innovation that made frontal engagement unnecesary. Embryo selection and CRISPR could again, in a few decades, produce quality babies without having to fix sex relations. Artificial wombs could make Brave New World a reality. Worldwide Haiti could be avoided, good babies produced and neither men nor women would have to cope with lifelong marriage, which let’s be honest, 80% of men nor women don’t really enjoy.
That’s assuming that advanced civilization stays in a more or less stable way. In that case the breakdown is here to stay. If some big fat SHTF moment happens, if there’s widespread collapse, then all bets are off. An old school patriarchy would have the upper hand there. But it would have to be solid, have a strong religion behind it. A new religion, perhaps.
102 comments
[…] The Wars of the Sexes […]
"The best people on earth today are all, thanks to the open sexual market of all against all (the extension du domain de la lutte of Houellebecq’s first novel) brought by female emancipation, squeezing themselves into big global cities, competing for status in a non-stop rat race which makes family formation impossible." The problem you describe is one of my top concerns. The way you phrase it suggests that this happened because of female emancipation. But as you later suggested, it seems likely that female emancipation happened because women can now feed themselves. In other words, the problem is intrinsic to modernity and technological society. Is an urban post-industrial patriarchy even possible? Could there be Amish who live in the city? Slatestarcodex's NRX "takedown" posited that traditional morality is an adaptation to traditional ways of life - that is, a hungry and hardscrabble existence - and modern morality an adaptation to modern ways of life - that is, limitless plenty. Of course he failed to notice that modern morality is deeply maladaptive in the ways you describe, but I'm not sure he's wrong in principle. So I think a post like this which suggests the Benedict option, the mannerbund option, and the "new religion" option really also ought to consider the Kaczynski option.
The thing about the Kaczynski - Luddite option is that you can't do that unless all your neighbors do it at the same time. Which you can't force them to. It's like the "city states are the best form of government thing". Sure, until you're Venice and the Grand Armeé of Napoleon mobilizes an army sized 3 times your whole population and invades you. Competition works all ways.
Yeah well if Venice had the nuke even Napoleon would probably think twice.
You need industry to get nukes!
The future is tribes with WMD's.
Technology rules over mankind; it's no longer the other way round.
Tsukazaki ... Yes ... I agree with your point. When the economics change the mating logic changes. I moved to a poor country a year ago and the mating strategy of all the women is much different here, because there are no government handouts or government jobs (or even decent private-sector jobs). But they DO have laws where the woman can take a dude to the cleaners if he has money, marries her and has kids. So ... it's wildly anti-civilizational.
This adaptationist stuff is called technological determinism. And that is a very, very seductive set of ideas. Because it implies history is not really ruled by the damn extroverted social climbers, but the introverted engineers. It gives an excellent excuse to not participate in the culture war and go back to tinkering. It is absolutely something one wants to be true. But it is wrong. The particular version of tech determinism I tend to be a sucker for is military technology determinism. Gunpowder leads to egalitarianism and democracy when any musket armed peasant can shoot an armored knight. But the thing is the knights were not exactly invulnerable before to longbows at Crecy and pointy sticks at Bannockburn and Golden Spurs. And China had a long history of having a non-egalitarian, non-democratic culture while also having gunpowder and crossbows and probably they would find the whole idea that social inequality is maintained by the elites wearing impenetrable body armor crude as fuck. It is D&D thinking. So we cannot just wait for someone inventing Herbert Frank's Dune type armor to win the culture war for us. Thing is, society is social. It is psychological stuff and social technologies that determine the outcome of social competition, rather regardless of technology. It is seductive to think hard times lead to hard men who are alpha and easily dominate women, and soft times lead to soft men who don't do it that easily. But isn't stuck at DIY level thinking? When the shops are not selling beer, you DIY homebrew. When sex relations are fucked up, you DIY your local dominance and look up Manosphere blogs on how to be alpha. But advanced cultures always have a division of labor. They buy beer in the store, leaving the job to brewing companies. And they can just as easily leave the job of fixing sex relations by, say, the state banning women out of high paying jobs and not giving out single mother healthcare, which suddenly makes beta programmers about as popular in the eyes of women as they currently are in parts of India, or so I have heard. You have to DIY when the breweries aren't brewing and the state isn't doing its job, but the lack of DIY is hardly the ultimate reason of this issue. Of course a lot of men today look quite phaggy. But the causal relationship is not very clear. Capuchin monkeys get insane testosterone boosts out of winning social competitions. A programmer friend of mine who is about as far from the idea of a naturally masculine man as Woody Allen told me the "elder monkey effect". He holds training courses to 5-10 people about some new piece of tech and the men give out submission body language signals and the women give him the lustful eyes and first it is awkward and shy and all but by the fifth time he enjoys being the high status elder monkey teaching the young monkeys new tricks, and feels quite natural at strutting around like a local alpha. So it is the other side really. Soft, weak men do not earn status, respect and women when it is all DIY. But it is also possible to engineer a situation when a man gets status, respect and and he very quickly turns into not-weak and not-soft.
It's not a bad idea, on an individual level. Now, I'm not saying that we live in a world where status points can only be gained one way, but the number of things (that *women* see) in which a man can have high status is pretty limited, even if it can be somewhat expandable. Also, a lot of these men getting to the women's private parts doesn't translate it into having [more] children. How many children does this programmer have? Heck, how many children does Roosh have? Forgetting about the number of children for the moment and going back to my original premise, again: he number of areas in which a man can gain a high status and be visible to women isn't that high, despite the fact that feminism has put women in many areas of life (a curse that actually helps in this situation). So, we *still* have a problem...
[…] Source: Bloody Shovel […]
What is "pretty much a virgin" anyway? Second or third base? First is where a woman consents to kissing a man? Has anyone ever explained second or third? Does second or third count as Catholic chastity during courtship? He didn't claim virginity on his wedding night either, so I guess he needs to explain that one to his priest? I think he claimed virginity well into his adult life, however, to explain that he was not "that guy." I heard some grumblings from chaste Catholics that he has "over sharing", but it may have been a brilliant tactical admission, however. ' Just like no woman other than Michelle has come forward about Barry, and even there, claims are made that Barry's kids were fathered by, who was it, Bill Ayers, Valerie Jarret's hubby, or was it Web Hubbell, can't keep any of this straight, no GF has asserted this isn't true about Justice K?
Just making the point that he wasn't a ladies man.
>taking your assets and your children Don't have assets. This really helps. Rent a comfortable home, but don't own anything beyond a few months, maybe a year of of survival funds. Don't push yourself to work too hard and above all don't consider something like a life insurance. A wife's perspective entirely changes if, at divorce, she has no house or large bank account to her name, just a rented flat / condo that the man will maybe keep paying for, maybe not. I trust my wife but at the end of the day dangling cabbage in front of a goat is not that wise if you don't want the goat to eat it. It is better to not tempt people. My wife knows perfectly well that the likely outcome of a divorce, even including child support, still means renting a flat about one size smaller than our current common one. Of course it is not the primary thing holding our marriage together, but helps. If you are earning so much that you can't help saving or else you would have to buy really stupid things, start working less.
Also, don't live in a jurisdiction where child support is based on "imputed" instead of actual income. One more thing my wife knows is that I have played with the idea of spending 6-12 months on the government's dole, getting my own tax money back, while writing a book. Getting 20% of that as child support would be no fun for her. She knows I won't do this as long as she behaves, but if she would decide to give up on the marriage promise I could easily decide to give up on my role to be the breadwinner and then she would have problems. So basically my advice is don't be TOO good at that kind of trad breadwinner role. There is a a middle road between the poolside PUA and the entirely dedicated family father. The road of the easy-does-it husband and father who does have a decent job but does not work too hard, who does provide comfort to the family but no security in his absence in the form of wealth, who knows and communicates that as long as the welfare state exists any man can decide to drop out of work (for a while) because the child will not starve, and in general just taking your responsibilities about half as seriously as in the olden times. This requires no alpha traits at all, as I think I have very little, it is just strategically applying laziness one perhaps already has. And yet it works like Dread Game.
You are basically engaged in a tactical-strategical struggle against her, and so is she against you. And that's, you are explaining us, a form of success.
Agreed 100%. But it's not applicable for some people.
If you've run your relationship correctly, your woman will consider the prospect of betraying you the way an first mate considers the prospect of mutiny against his Captain. She needs to get the unspoken impression that there will be punishment: swift, merciless, and extralegal, but beholden to the ancient laws. You don't need to beat your woman. Beating a woman is generally a sign of weakness. But she should be a little bit afraid of you nonetheless. And the sex will be incredible. Being a good master of your woman is not easy in today's world, but if you cannot even do that, there's no hope that you can capture and restore a civilization.
I agree with everything except that beating a woman is a sign of weakness, I think that might be the case with the modern men you hear about but in principle it’s not weakness. I smack my dogs ass when he does something out of line, not every time, much of the time it’s just a scolding, but if you go too long with just an implied threat of violence then the threat loses its power. If your wife embarrasses you in public, the sort of nasty way a woman can do unconsciously (not innocently though) what should be the recourse? I get that modern men need to be really fucking careful with physical stuff but pretend the man can do whatever he wants without police interference.
I draw a distinction between discipline and a beating. Physical discipline is orderly and impassionate, and it works whether it's your kids or your woman. Getting sloppy drunk and wailing on your wife while crying and screaming is a sign that you're not in control. The law does not draw this distinction so I do not recommend it.
This story about men getting sloppy drunk and wailing on their wife and kids is just feminist boilerplate. It absolutely never happens. The feminists run homes for battered wives and troll for poster girls, cannot get poster girls. To the extent that men beat women who are sleeping with them and not, so far as they know, with other men (and i beat women with great regularity) it is in a playful or controlled manner. I do it in public and get away with it, which tells you the style in which I do it. Men don't beat woman who are available for sex with them and not, as far as they know, available for sex with other men, any more than they would beat themselves. Evolutionary psychology predicts this, and observation confirms.
Evolutionary psychology also predicts a subset of women who need to be wailed on, but I don't mention them because I don't intend on targeting them as wives and mothers. We know that some women get wailed on because we hear stories of women staying with, defending, and going back to men who wail on them. Mostly because the woman is cheating, yes. I know men who claim that their fathers got drunk and wailed on them. It's possible that they're lying for attention, or to be able to claim that they had a hard life. Some men are unstable and do indeed "beat themselves" in the sense that they do all sorts of self-destructive behaviors that are against their evolutionary best interests.
>This story about men getting sloppy drunk and wailing on their wife and kids is just feminist boilerplate. It absolutely never happens. My paternal grandfather who lived through World War 2 in Poland did this, at least according to my father. Then again an aunt on my father's side says otherwise. Don't have any firsthand knowledge myself, never even met the man. The postergirl principle is a good thing to keep in mind but it assumes that the people searching for postergirls are 100% effective at finding them.
I've seen plenty of it too. Happened all the time. Not anymore, though.
>but pretend the man can do whatever he wants without police interference. That's the point. He can't, ergo beating her is risky and foolish, ergo he either doesn't know it's risky and is an idiot, or does know and lacks self-control.
You make it sound easy. "Own your wife" is not a solution that scales, I believe. Not all men have it in them and not all women have it in them. We need a solution for the average man, which can be whipped into pulling himself together but we shouldn't require more of normal men than was required for millennia.
You are right about that. It doesn't scale. But it is the foundation for an elite class. And elite classes build communities and institutions that allow average men to have patriarchy.
> “Own your wife” is not a solution that scales, I believe. Not all men have it in them and not all women have it in them. Yes and no. Yes, very hard to own your wife. Need support from society, and not getting that support. No, in that the vast majority of men could do better than they do now, if they were realistic about female nature, and men should feel that they are entitled to do better than they do now, that the difficulties that they face are wrong and unjust.
The problem is that these days even if there was less state involvement , baring children of course the value of a wife is much lower than the past. Its not like she is needed to fetch water, cook meals , sew clothes or any of the other traditional women's work. In the past women's work was a huge aid to the comfort of a man and man's work to the comfort of the women and family was basically automatic unless one or more parties were sterile. We haven't lived in a world like that in over half a century , its all wage work for all parties. A moderately well off couple can basically hire out almost everything the wife or streamline it with machines would do and a well off one, basically everything . This is going to screw up marriage arrangements big time. A woman becomes in some ways a risky declining asset. Now of course our human instincts can cope with this, hell they can barely cope with agriculture without essentially using torture (c.f the Chinese caning article above) to gain compliance. This kind of suggests to me that large scale civilizations is inherently dysfunctional and best we can do is adapt to it till it regresses to the smaller scale barbarism and tribalism we are adapted too. I think it was Ovid who wrote, paraphrased If you beat mother nature off with a stick, she returns with a rush All that aside, given the US has 320 million people in it already and the world 7 billion I'm hard pressed to see why we possibly need more. We certainly need to restore the healthy historical ratio of 25% Europeans to other groups but our lives and the ecology would be far better off with less people in the world. Maybe 1 or 2 billion is more than enough. ON those grounds, stopping immigration and invasion matters but population decline does not other than it impairing the above,
"if there’s widespread collapse, then all bets are off." If we don't manage to split this country peacefully, I have a sneaking feeling that all bets are going to be off...
If we don’t manage to split this country peacefully I'm not trying to pick a fight but how exactly are you going to split it? Where is the border going to be? The big divide in terms of values and lifestyles seems to be between rural and urban dwellers. So however you divide the country the cities will still be festering open sores of degeneracy and decadence. Even if you divided the country into a dozen mini-nations you'd still have the problem of the cultural poison seeping out of the cities to infect the rest of the community. And of course anywhere you have a university you have another source of cultural poison.
I suspect the US won't split peacefully as the Left won't allow it and frankly give the strategic implications of it, neither should the Right. This suggests a less pleasant outcome to me though in that case universities won't be a problem as such things tend to be targets in war time
“They didn’t like the patriarchy,“ and “neither men nor women would have to cope with lifelong marriage, which let’s be honest, 80% of men nor women don’t really enjoy.” I think this is quite misleading, women didn’t like the patriarchy in the same children don’t like being told no by their parents, they eventually outgrow their resent me and realize it was for their benefit and development. Plus women are pretty miserable these days at an absurdly young age, chicks I know that are a few years older, just 25 are basically still obsessed with their college days when hundreds of guys wanted to fuck them and now only a few guys they think are beneath them are, they never properly developed into adult women. Marriage seems miserable now but I don’t think it’s about the union of two people, it’s more about the pointlessness of most people’s lives, how you’re supposed to follow these old rituals that don’t have much belief behind them anymore but we act out out of habit. Then you have maybe a kid or two or none at all and just work shitty jobs, eat shitty, food, watch shitty tv until health problems begin at age 45. They have no community in their lives, no family nearby and lost all their friends along the way. A western woman would be miserable in the segregated village life you describe
I've known traditional peasants in the West and the East, I've known my grandparents generation. I don't know, I don't get the feelings that marriages 100 years ago were that happy. Certainly happier than people today, I'll give you that but not that buoyant either. It's all about the options you have. I assume people will continue to have options for the foreseeable future.
You are one of the few writers who instinctively gets that . The current stupid situation re: marriage/relationships and such has quite a lot of time left in it. Its not sound or national but Communism managed 75 years and this while more destructive is less crazy. It always seems to me that the "Right" such as it is hasn't been able to adapt to the last half century of change in any meaningful way, automation, birth control, T.V. and as ends up mirroring the Left or just is content to hide and loot. NrX serves up ideas even if its a passive and intellectual movement rather than an active one. On that matter while the Dissident Right whose hearts are in the Right places really aren't smart enough for the ride. They can't think of a world in which everyone isn't Christian or one that is post industrial or in which people can in fact choose to say play video games instead of marry or worse where that's even a good idea. They can't cope with choice which is bad as it is is something the Left excels at The Right in all its facets needs a dare I say it vision for the future that isn't a rehash of the 1950's that never was. Now my vision would be "An America that is like a Hallmark Movie mixed with a bit of Forged in Fire" but whether anyone would fight for such a thing even in the political sense, who knows I suspect though the person that can sell this, can win if he and it will be a he, is ruthless and powerful enough.
Hit the nail on the head as usual. One thing you left unmentioned is that women have been subject to sex selection for a very long time under patriarchy. They've evolved in concert with it, and secretly yearn for the hand of a strong man telling them what to do. That's why they seek out replacements in the big cities: demanding work schedules, calendars booked with endless phaggy hobbies, big bossy dogs that she can't say no to or train properly, etc. Women will shit test, but at the end of the day what they like and want is to be dominated in the sack, to be told what to do (some gentler, some harsher) and to have their lives planned for them. You mention the 'Amish option', but I'm acquainted with some Amish on a personal level and their girls and women are very, very happy. The Mannerbund that forsakes women will be full of homosexuals because the whole point of forming a war-band of big, manly, vicious dudes is to either protect the women you already have or go break some heads and take some other tribe's women. The latter isn't feasible considering that the state still has a monopoly on violence, so we need to focus on the former. Which means, duh, that you need women first. Then you form a cadre of like-minded dudes. Then you settle on an old strong religion. Then you have a community, and a community by its very nature will attract men and women from outside. And such a community can gain and consolidate political power. In terms of your options, it goes Game, Mannerbund, Benedict. Although the 'monastic' existence is not retreat. It's more like what the Orthodox J's are doing in NY, a vigorous expansion and fight for influence. As I've said before, institutions and communities are only formed to protect the good that is obtained organically. The first step is to dominate a woman, to make her yours, body and soul, and create a little bubble of patriarchy; a community of two, and then more, when you have kids. Only then will any larger community have traction. I have a friend who recently became a father, and he told me that his first instinct, when his kid came screaming into the world, was to buy a property and a bunch of guns far away from the degenerate city. Only among men who feel this, acutely and overridingly, can there be community and reactionary solidarity.
That women are extremely happy under the patriarchal conditions under which they evolved strikes me as plausible. Maybe Spandrell is just being a negative ninny. (At least, I very much hope it is so.)
"They’ve evolved in concert with it, and secretly yearn for the hand of a strong man telling them what to do." Which the man won't realize is, one more time, he functioning as an appliance or tool, thanks to intoxication from feeling of power. I agree that women like that.
"big bossy dogs that she can’t say no to or train properly" Fuck... I hadn't noticed that before. It's true.
Then you form a cadre of like-minded dudes. Then you settle on an old strong religion. Then you have a community, and a community by its very nature will attract men and women from outside. And such a community can gain and consolidate political power. I'm not clear exactly how you're going to gain and consolidate political power. Especially given that the current political establishment is going to incredibly hostile and is going to do everything in its power to destroy you. It’s more like what the Orthodox J’s are doing in NY, a vigorous expansion and fight for influence. Orthodox Jews, by virtue of being Jews, are a protected group. The only way your option could work would be by adopting a religion that has protected status. That probably means your options are Orthodox Judaism or Islam.
As dreary as it sounds, perhaps the best way to re-install the patriarchy in the West is if we all convert to Islam.
https://spandrell.com/2016/02/the-easy-way-out/
I should have know you had been there already.
If we do, the Left will attack Islam for being a white man's religion just as they do with Christianity. So zero benefits, and we would still have to bow to the durka durkas.
Except it's all a f@#$ing nightmare in the Islamic world. By embracing polygamy officially, as opposed to unofficial polygamy in practice in the west, they have a continual demographic pressure of young men. That's why there have always been "rebels/bandits in the hills". They don't create much, they have to buy it from us, and have the same instability problems in Africa where you can only really have a sound society by having a real rat bastard calling the shots and putting the boot in where indicated. It's like trying to fix an dangerous stomach infection by drinking pesticide. It may work, but the cure just might kill you. How about, instead, we do what worked before in the West?
The nightmare of the Islamic world is more a function of present Muslims being dumb than about the religion itself. I'd rather keep my wine and my pork, but I don't see Christianity pulling itself together.
Christianity is past its do date frankly and the West doesn't need any Abrahamic Religions, better of they stay in the Middle East where they belong. A civilized West needs something else, something new. Problem is we are in that awkward phase where we don't have a clue what that is. That said the highest fertility rate in the US is among Amish so its possible that Christianity may rise again. Obviously stats don't work this way but in theory in a couple of centuries, from say the time of the War of 1812 till now, the vast majority of the population will be Amish with outliers being Evangelical and LDS Its also probable that given current decline spirals, the Amish will have sustainable way of life not much lower than the neighbors in those few centuries . Something from the Saker via Vox Day In the declassified part of the research of the American Department of Defence it is mentioned that in the US there are difficulties with future deliveries of the power switches that nearly all American missiles are equipped with. As officials of the Pentagon report, the producer of these switches was closed down, but the highest military ranks learned about it only after it became clear that the power switches ended. And there is nowhere to take new ones from, because the producer disappeared into thin air a whole 2 years ago. One more striking example: the country’s only producer of solid rocket motors for “air-to-air” missiles, as the American officials write, “encountered technical production issues”, the reasons for which couldn’t be found even after government and military experts were involved. Attempts to restart production failed, and the Pentagon was obliged to employ a Norwegian company to ensure uninterrupted deliveries. Obviously, this indicates a certain technical degradation of the entire American system, because only the loss of some key competencies can explain a situation in which production cannot be restored and the problem cannot even be determined. Whilst becoming acquainted with the complaints of the leadership of the American army it is difficult to rid oneself of the impression that it isn’t a document of the US Department of Defence dated September, 2018 that is in front of your eyes, but a description of the problems of the Russian army from the era of the dashing 90’s. Literally there is no direction in which there would be no serious or very serious problems, and often they even can’t be solved at the expense of the bottomless military budget. In the section on nuclear weapon problems the Pentagon complains that in the US there isn’t the necessary number of engineers and technicians who would have the corresponding education, training, and US citizenship that are necessary for working with army nuclear objects. The mention of nationality is of importance, because American higher education institutions produce enough engineers, physicists, and representatives of other technical specialties and exact sciences, however a disproportionately large number of these graduates are foreigners, most often from the People’s Republic of China. This is a solid indicator of Greer's Catabolic Collapse theory , the upside of which is that the implosion will greatly increase male status in a generation or so when the US is fully third world no matter who lives here.
How about, instead, we do what worked before in the West? If you're talking about Christianity forget it. You're not going to be allowed to choose that option. And Christianity has a proven track record of failure when its comes up against liberalism.
>Now some patriarchies allowed polygamy. Europe didn’t. Yes they did. The ancient Greek kings had concubinage and so did the Germanics (Ex: Harald Harfager from the Heimskringla) Monogamy is the exception in society, not the norm. It's a circumstantial covenant between the Alphas and Betas of a given society, where the Alphas share the women and the Betas have an incentive to work hard.
Children of concubines in China were perfectly legitimate and had inheritance rights. Europe was unique in the exclusive status it gave to original wives.
I think he means Europe proper as in Christian Europe. Monogamy is wise because it gives men a stake in a society. The "dry branches" of China that eventually became the Tongs and Triads are what happens when you confuse "beta" with "total bitch". Top 20% of men may very well be generous, but let's take it as accurate. When you lock the bottom 80% out of marriage and out of a real economic future, they don't just slink off and die, they think about pressing the f$&k it button and how crime seems like more fun than starving in a rice paddy or it's equivalent. As much as it's mocked, video games and solitary vice are probably keeping the lid on more than we realize. It may not be the best use of your time, but things can get way, way worse. There's a simple answer and it's just say "no". We can't control society, but on a personal level refuse to cooperate as much as you can and run when you can't and fight when you can't do that. I'm not full blown MGTOW, I've seen marriages work, but the answer is don't play the game unless you have a rational expectation of winning. Now there would be a solution if I were the proverbial king for the day, and that's basically restoring the order that existed in the West before (more or less). Monogamy, and if you have a child out of wedlock that's on you. Adultery is a crime, and no more equality funding and jobs in education and the professions. It will work itself out naturally more or less. Top 10% of men? Take the top 10% of women, knock yourself out, no one's begrudging you. You just can't have all of them.
I won that game. You can win it also. Women want to be owned, and want to be owned by someone who can overcome their sturdy resistance to being owned.
Teach me, senpai. I'm bowing a knee
However, all personality traits are heritable, and fertility preferences are ultra-competitive in a post-Malthusian environment. So in the end the problem will resolve itself. If there is no sharp discontinuity, such as superintelligence or our simulation winking out, then in a few centuries we will once again converge to the carrying capacity of the industrial economy, and the Malthusian grinder will reassert itself with a vengeance. Gnon always wins in the long run.
Yes, Anatoly, you are probably right about the long run. But we are stuck in the short run :(
Sexually reproducing a high IQ species requires cooperation. In the current environment, evolution selects for low cooperation. Evolution is going to head us into extinction unless we change the social environment so that reproductive cooperation is enforced, and failure to cooperate punished.
I used to believe this, but "fertility preference" does not exist in the population in a proportion that prevents us from being overrun by hordes of hungry Africans, scheming Orientals, and bloodthirsty Muslims. And I acknowledge that it is ultra-competitive, but so is traditionalist religion and patriarchy for achieving the same effect. There was never an evolutionary need for "fertility preference". People liked having sex, and sex led to kids. "Fertility preference" is something that could evolve in future, but the starting point today (how many women both want 10 kids and actually go through with it?) is a tiny, tiny number. Women today who express fertility preference are almost universally members of traditionalist religions. Fertility preference, as far as it is heritable, is probably through parental/social transmission. The genetic basis of it is near nonexistent, because for billions of years of life, all your genes needed to tell you to do was fuck. There was no need for a separate conscious 'fertility preference' as a personality trait, thus one did not evolve. If there was a need for one, it would be predominant already.
Yes. Evolution is likely not a workable solution and at any rate we don't want to wait.
Simulations show that this will only take 2-3 centuries. We'll not see it (barring radical life extension), but we will see its germination. There's a good chance that average TFR will be solidly above replacement throughout Europe and North America by the close of the century.
A very obvious fertility preference associated with political views has emerged in the US since the advent of birth control:
Can't remember the source, maybe Audacious Epigone? Someone with better knowledge of genetics will have to answer if 3 generations of this will end up changing the population.
Ultimately it doesn't matter if conservatives are outbreeding liberals if liberals get to put your kids through sixteen years of indoc and turn them into leftists who don't breed. If fertility preference was a genetically inheritable trait independent of religious and cultural mores, it would constitute an evolutionary advantage everywhere and always and would thus be ubiquitous in the population. Community and religion get the job done and they do it in one generation rather than hoping you can stay isolated from the rest of the world long enough for the trait to naturally evolve.
There was, but it was weak, because people who reproduced beyond their means actually paid for it before the rise of welfare states (fewer surviving grandchildren). Also cultural norms and economic incentives were strongly pro-natality (more farmhands are usually good), so "breeders" had less scope to increase their share of the population in principle. If a breeder has 10 kids and his/her neighbor has 7 kids (average number for most agricultural societies), then that's less of a relative difference than having just a mere 2 kids to someone's one kid today. Cultural norms and economic incentives are now strongly anti-natality, which gives breeders much more room to "shine" and strongly propagate their genes.
"Resolve itself" in the form of Worldwide Haiti.
But even that wouldn't stop the coming of the age of Malthusian industrialism. Civilization would still eventually recover - it will just be less phenotypically aesthetic (so far as we're concerned - to them, it would be an abstract consideration).
1. That the descendants of Worldwide Haiti eventually evolve into a race capable of industrialism is... even if possible, not something that gives me peace of mind. 2. There's a case to make that if we mess up the present cycle of industry, there's not enough easily accessible coal anymore to jumpstart a new one. There was a name for this theory which I forgot.
Olduvai Gorge.
That's it! Thanks man.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FQI8sbUB5Bw JBP on marriage. I hope you’ll give it a listen, I think he’s right
I don't think it's quite accurate to say women didn't like the patriarchy. In an increasingly industrialized society, Men likely stopped holding up their side of the Christian patriarchal marriage bargain first. It's probably not unfair to say they increasingly treated their wives like shit while acting like douchebags. As secularization and a comfier existence started to take hold men weren't beholden to the rules - they stopped going to Church and espousing Pauline morality in their lives. This means disciplining poorly behaved women but also self-policing and espousing virtue and humility. Eventually women had incentive to defect and men didn't do much to stop it. The rise of the bugman, though still in its larval form was upon us. Frankly, I see no reason how or why a "new" religion would help in this at all. Religious tradition doesn't do well when trying to co-exist with consumerism.
> Men likely stopped holding up their side of the Christian patriarchal marriage bargain first. Bullshit. We have overwhelming evidence of female bad behavior starting as soon as society stopped taking extremely drastic measures to prevent it.
> We have overwhelming evidence of female bad behavior starting as soon as society stopped > taking extremely drastic measures to prevent it. Yes, because Men (particularly elites) were the first to defect as they were in a position to do so. If women are unhappy with a Patriarchy it's because men aren't doing it right.
You are entirely out of contact with reality, and unfamiliar with history. During the eighteenth century, the patriarchy used extraordinarily extreme measures to stop women from defecting, and nonetheless faced significant rates of defection. When, during the early nineteenth century, men stopped using stern measures, women defected at alarming rates as soon as men stopped applying very strong measures to stop them from defecting.
Women were never, and are never, unhappy with patriarchy. It is just a shit test.
You don't need a favourable ecology to maintain patriarchy. You just need to make sure boys are trained physically (martial arts, hunting, combat etc) from a young age and re-institute a form of duelling to solve contentious disputes instead of letting some fairy in a wig do it for you.
The difference between strategies 1 and 3, and the difference between strategies 2 and 4, are both essentially matters of how attractive the guy doing the strategy is. There are really two strategies there.
That's somewhat uncharitable to strategy 1. Some people really don't like playing the field. But I see what you mean.
Individually maintaining authority over the women in your life works, despite a surrounding hostile society. If more men did it, society would face more resistance in its efforts to destroy marriage and the family. Female resistance to male power is always a shit test. They are playing to lose. The problem is always white knights who hope to cuckold you. Collective male authority over women and collective resistance to males hoping to cuckold other males has to start from individual male authority over their families. A collectively red pilled social order has to start with each male individually red pilled.
The consequence of individual red pilling has not been happier marriages, but more men choosing to not take the risk of marrying.
Pretty sure that individual red pilling does lead to happier marriages. I was raised in an environment where the old view of women survived to some extent, married a virgin at a very young age, and she stuck around despite what is now officially viewed as poor treatment.
Good for you, but you're not the average man.
I believe the only way is to take control of the propaganda apparatus. People will believe *anything*, women more so. Repeat the old-new tenets all the time, slut shame and apply ostracism. And above all, make women believe being a childless sperm receptacle leads to low prestige AND make all women believe everyone else sincerely thinks so. Spread this message in movies. In TV commercials. At school. Add some punitive laws to the mix. 20 years and it's done.
I believe the only way is to take control of the propaganda apparatus. What a great idea. That should be really easy. If we ask them nicely liberals will hand over control of the propaganda apparatus to us.
By the time sh becomes willing to settle for one man who is willing to settle for her, she is getting close to thirty and running out of time. And game is not going to solve this problem, is observed to fail to solve this problem. But it is absolutely obvious to me that it at least somewhat alleviates this problem. 1 Girls simply prefer serial monogamy, with unending drama and attention when they are young and hot. 2. Women choose what they perceive to be serial monogamy with males that are well out of their league, men who are just not in to them, who are just not interested in having a relationship with them. But those men are interested in having relationships with women in their own league. And those women cheat on them, playing one guy off against another, always trying to get a better deal. So they despair of owning a women, and answer expected defection with defection. He spins plates, she practices serial monogamy. Spinning plates is the sad and bitter solution to powerlessness. Yes, a man likes polygyny, but he also wants those multiple wives to belong to himself alone. Yes, a harem is better than just one wife, but a changing rotation of whores is not a harem. The point of having more than one woman is having more than one woman. If I sleep with several women that is really great. If one of them sleeps with another man that is really bad and I will certainly dump her, probably beat her, and might well kill her. I will be very angry and sad for a very long time. Spinning plates is not polygyny, but bitter acceptance of disturbing reality. But being deluded about female nature, and submitting to female leadership does not solve this problem, but rather considerably worsens it.
I would find it more plausible that the social order could be bootstrapped by natural alpha group leaders passing down their slightly used girlfriends to their beta followers in return for loyalty. Asking all men to alpha up is too much, while this model would work with everybody just playing out their natural role, as prenatal T / digit ratio predicts it. This is something I saw at college, natural alpha dude wanted more variety and wanted to get rid of overly attached jealous girlfriend, hooked her up with a friend who wasn't a big deal and on his own he could not get the chick, but somehow the preselection effect, the recommendation from the big guy or something actually helped and it worked out.
Lol. And you think that female now genuinely likes the second guy?
No.
While I agree that feminism has screwed up the incentives in all sorts of ways, it seems to me that fertility rates are below replacement levels in all high-IQ countries, regardless of how big a dose of feminism they've gotten. And so I wonder if the main culprit is, in fact, contraception. (Welfare also seems to be a major factor, but you could argue that that's another consequence of feminism.)
The dose of feminism that they have gotten is indistinguishably similar
This is not anywhere near as true as it appears to those of us who live in cities and buy our food in supermarkets. Our food infrastructure is amazingly fragile and getting moreso, and I'm not talking about global warming. Just one point to get you started: GMOs started hitting the market because they are necessary, not simply because they are somehow better. And seed stocks are more centralized than ever.
Sad.
"They are actually going extinct because their women would rather take PhDs than make babies. And they do that because women don’t actually like most men. Women are wired to like the top 10-20% of men, “top” meaning bigger, stronger and more violent. It’s how it works in most mammals, you can’t argue with 500 million years of evolution. Hate the game, not the player." Let's add one further layer of shade to the picture: "bigger, stronger, and more violent" meaning the tool that is more likely to prove an efficient tool. The "this is a tool I can use well" lurks beneath the passion for Chad too. On one side, to see that untied me from some, in good part subconscious, envy of Chad I used to have. On the other, it made me more depressed. It's not rare that you hear a women-alluring affair-experienced man voice disappointment at women, and it is a sadder kind of disappointment than the non-women-alluring man's. Now, on to the "more and more men are noticing, and opposing what they have noticed" part. Where? Among your Twitter followship maybe? Try to register to an anonymous chat site, where many attempted chats are between man and man (because there is a woman for every 5-10 men lol) and tell them "Ok, I knew you weren't a girl since your third or fourth message: they were [witty/creative/thoughtful/xyz/ and women aren't like that" and watch the response. Or see how tge excellent The Red Pill got the boot on Reddit. You lean towards biological Leninism. I lean towards seing the hardening of the "war of the sexes" as the yield of some long-devised, uniformly-pursued social engineering on the part of, well, the same groups that worked up workers against owners before moving onto doing the same with "the sexes". The dynamics, methods, stages, are very near then and now. Envy is what motivates a critical mass of people — nothing else works, basically. It's being fed in too systemic, and spread, a way not to be a planned operation, I think. Of course the war of the sex is a thing of nature, as are the 2, parallel, intra-sex wars. Actually, men enjoy feeling powerful over other men so much, that they'll hardly eschew attacking another man if the latter is seen arguing loud with a woman (let alone returning physical hits for her psychological hits). It's a comfortable illusions that the intervening man/men actually cares for the woman. He/they are just catching a chance to use power over another man. As for strategy 2): Shakespeare too wrote that the surest way not to lose a wrong game is to not play it. 3) "Become an alpha, what women want". You know you just wrote: submit to women — though in a form such that nearly no men or women will read it correctly, don't you? It feels a bit as if... you can lose and lose, or win and still be losing. I don't say there are no winners though. The winners are those who play the game well, without awareness of the playing and their playing. It's awareness, not having no babies, that is the defeat, I think.
I don't see any way to change this unless Men are able to have children without Women. Right now there's people using artificial wombs to raise sheep babies. http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/25/15421734/artificial-womb-fetus-biobag-uterus-lamb-sheep-birth-premie-preterm-infant Recently we found out that eggs can be made from any female, skin, blood, etc,. cell it's "sperm" that's needed to start the multiplying process to make a baby. http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/10/baby-mice-created-from-skin-cells-and.html I don't think getting cells will be a problem. Women would surely sell their cells for a $1.000. The artificial wombs couldn't be too pricey. I suspect the price could be close to natural birth. There's a lot of programs to raise "equity". What if we spent say, 10% of the Defense departments budget on "equality" by perfecting the technology of artificial wombs and the techniques above. After 20 years or so it would truly bring about equality. Women would be much nicer.
There is the Fritzl scenario. This is basically the cave man thing. Knock a woman on the head. drag her to the basement, lock her in and make babies with her. Polite society sort of frowns on this though, especially if she's your own daughter.
Very good post. Reflects my thinking. Very pessimistic. However, all is not lost for MGTOW with some money and/or external help (via parents) and, even, in similar vein, to mannerbunds whose bonding-together is invisible to women. Another potential solution is something like this: https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/kids/single-dad-anthony-stralow-used-two-overseas-surrogates-to-have-the-three-children-hes-always-wanted/news-story/eebb3f373e6f5788d7ee0aeb5639f6e2 I expanded on that on Jim's blog: https://blog.jim.com/war/paternity-war-and-conquest/#comment-1917304
I don't think patriarchy is so closely connected with climate. Patriarchal tribes succesfully conquered matriarchal ones. So today there are few matriarchal societies. We're in a transition to one. And this is destroying our civilizational forces. Another thing I noticed. You anglosaxons are all about being "alphas", the behaviour, and so on. There's truth in it, but it's overemphazised. Bones matter. Facial structure. On tinder women don't see your character. It's not true that women wouldn't care if "betas" retired. That's 80% of men. Imagine them with no attention whatsoever from average guys. No likes. No sms. No asking outs. No compliments. They live by that.
I'm not Anglosaxon.
Ok. For us italians anglosaxon=USA, Canada, AUS, NZ, UK. Facial bones are really important. Hypergamy doesn't care
[…]https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2018/10/22/the-wars-of-the-sexes/[…]
[…] Also read this. […]
>They just want the top 20% alphas. Faking an alpha is a short terms solution that only leads women to recalibrate their algorithms to come up with a new 20%. ARE they going to recalibrate? As Yudkowsky wrote, humans are adaptation executors, not fitness maximizers. Women don't thoughtfully sort partners by status in their mind. They rely on a set of heuristics, crude and ancient. If every man turned into Heartiste overnight, an expert at overloading these heuristics, would women recalibrate and not feel attracted to the bottom 80% of men? I very much doubt it. Women's attraction would still be skewed, but most men would be eligible. (I am not saying it is actually realistic to turn every man into a Heartiste. I am just interested in getting at the evolutionary truth.) Also, your Harpending link is broken.
Sleeping with the enemy. A fellow Yorkshireman in Amsterdam gave an account of a Dutchwoman who was in the habit of asking a male if she could sleep with him. Then when the time came she would take off all or most of her clothes and climb into bed. When the inevitable advances were made she would ‘throw up in horror’ (his words) at the prospect of sex. He knew this to have occurred with six different males. With him it had happened two or three times and each time he had just turned over and gone to sleep. Apparently one Dutchman wrote her a letter afterwards apologizing for his presumption that sex would take place.
A man in England was living with his fiancée, he was 24 and she 20. The couple were visited by the police on an unrelated matter, for which no charges were ever brought, but it came out during the interviews that eight months previously the man had come home somewhat drunk and the couple had gone to bed. In the middle of sex the woman had withdrawn consent but he had carried on for a further five minutes. Armed with an admission from the man that this had taken place he was arrested, charged and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for rape. A female professor of law interviewed as part of the BBC radio report was adamant that the correct course had been followed. Have been reading Sheppard's Sex & Power as well as The Woman Racket by Steve Moxon. Found nothing I hadn't found on my own; still, it helps to have one's perceptions both confirmed and systemized. Honestly, the more unsettling confirmation I got was the dimensions of the disadvantage one born male has, as compared with females. Basically, you have females against you (if tied in a relationship with you, lol) or indifferent to you (if they are in no relationship with you), plus all other males against you — if they don't see you as of any use to them. If you try to pay back a female in her own coin, any male will take her side. The reasons for this are multiplex. 1) He may be the utility she is currently secured for herself (or one of a suite of utilities she controls): in this case his pride (disguised as chivalry and protection duty) is at play. He will turn against you, doing what he enjoys (bullying you) for the reasons he enjoys believing are his motivations. 2) He is a stranger. His naturally-rooted sense of rivalry against you, another man, will disguise itself as a pro-social want to "protect the weaker" (who's the weaker? The one he wants to side with, of course), and he'll turn against you, doing what enjoys (bullying you) for the reasons he enjoys believing his motivations. Possibly a subconscious hope that he may get in her graces (be given sex) is a driver too. The summation of all these single attitudes amounts to the attitude of the State — in all its branches — regarding every dispute between a male and a female. Unlike some manosphere bloggers choose to contextualize it, that the State is woman-controlled and a device used by women to secure privilege over men, the State is man-controlled and a device used by men to do what they enjoy (bullying other men) for the reasons they enjoy believing their motivations (selfless, humanitarian, noble, moral!). That a certain point in time, the upper crust of females, being more privileged than ever, begin feeling sure, and surer day after day, that they are disadvantaged and "reparations" are in order to secure fairness, well, what's more standard human behaviour than that? When somebody gets in a position of privilege, that is exactly what enables them to decry that others are privileged, and power as well as rights and resources have to be transferred from these others to them in order to level the field. The more the privilege, the more the power and material wealth transferrals desired, the more victimism-founding narratives are to be produced to rationalize the power increase. It's a loop and a human constant. After all, for humans, the definition of "wrong" is "wrong done to who has power"... The powerless are nobody and nothing, how could nothing and nobody be wronged? The thought alone is a piece of illogic. So the more the power, the more "wrongs" the powerful will believe, and have the others believe, they are the target of. The others will be disposed to believe it — they agree to submit, and desire to know nothing about their agreement: the narratives serve that purpose quite well. They make things easier for everybody. So for instance whenever tried to inject an inkling of sense into a discussion on male-female issues on social media, the most spirited replies championing that male continue being an underclass will come from males themselves. Now, these are well-adjusted people! Being it impossible to change things, what's the best adaptation? Love your subalternity, embrace your being discriminated against. Want what you have no option but to take. Add to this that seeing a male wronged by a female and prohibited from getting back at her makes other males, who aren't being wronged by a female at that time, feel the bullied male is low-status, and they are higher. So it's all good. Until, the day or two days after, it's their turn to be bullied, and the others' turn to watch in indifference. But it is to ask too much to be asking that they drew the mental parallel between what is happening today to Mr. X and what is likely to happen a while later to themselves, and discover it's the same thing, and that only co-operation will put a brake on it. Let's not ask too much of them, then.