FORWARD BASE B

"Pay my troops no mind; they're just on a fact-finding mission."

Career Women and Dysgenics

With the rise of automation and AI, encouraging women to spend more time out of the job market to raise children could serve as another pressure release valve.

They could be incentivized to have more kids while politically correct subsidies on female employment are removed and laws hostile to fathers and blank-check rape and harassment laws are repealed.  As we all know, though, women love careers with a fierceness men have never known because it gives them the illusion of unlimited choice in the sexual market.  So where material incentives might fail to persuade women to be less involved in the labor market and have above replacement fertility we need to look at some cultural roots of the problem.

To begin with, women have always worked outside the home and on the farm, so the whole idea of barefoot and in the kitchen is the other side of a false dichotomy perpetuated by feminists.  Being a purely stay-at-home wife was a privilege of the middle classes and above.  Any history of the industrial revolution tells us of the huge role women played in manufacturing.  Though many women worked, they tended to work fewer hours and stuck to positions that could be plausibly returned to after extended leave of absence, or left behind altogether.

It is not reasonable, though, to leave a competitive career track and expect to easily come back a year later.  This kind of gender welfare is untenable.
The simple truth about women in serious careers is they are trading their fertility for more personal autonomy and mate choice.  Even if they manage to have an only child in their 30s, they’re left far behind in the genetic arms race.

A society that encourages female careerism has to consider the impact of female dysgenics as the brightest and most capable of each generation are wiped out as surely as male soldiers charging a machine gun bunker.  First world civilizations are remarkable in that women are experiencing almost male levels of selective pressure.  Typically, societies with high female attrition disappear.

One possibility is we accept that the human species needs to be more sexually dimorphic in a prosperous, high-information society and simply let all those who take the bait of feminism breed themselves out over the next couple generations.  The problem is everyone gets genes from their mothers so dysgenics for women might be dysgenic for everyone.

Not to mention, it is already hard enough for high IQ men to find compatible partners.  The only way for such a society to stay at modern levels would be to make sure smart men have many babies with concubines he doesn’t have to spend too much time around and perhaps eugenic qualities would get progressively more linked to the y chromosome.

If we look for a more moderate path, maybe some females, especially those plainly of a man-jawed aspect should be encouraged to enter into careers but everyone would understand they are to be regarded as nuns or honorary men.  They would have no special status in the general class of women and thereby be denied a podium to normalize tribally suicidal behaviors.
These cleverest, most socially dominant women would have to be prevented from poisoning the cultural well by making anti-natal behaviors appear high status to the female masses.  Feisty upper middle class Jewesses with chiseled chins who churn out tomes of gender vitriol would have to be either given sufficient outlets to keep them happy or else crushed down and bred out when they get out of line.  

The basic social contract for career women would be that they have to help society with cheerful good will rather than try to destroy it with subversion and activism.  They would have their place in the hierarchy they must respect like men do.  They wouldn’t be allowed to go completely wild in the workplace like they do now.

Those competent women sufficiently attractive and of not completely abrasive character might be encouraged to donate their eggs to wombs belonging to those of low intellect. The surrogates could be given special rewards for volunteering.

Also, there could be subsidized in-home nannies instead of daycare for high IQ women so lady scientists don’t have to spend a couple years changing diapers or nursing.  This would help reduce the basic conflict of female fertility with self-actualizing work.  
A setup like this was actually pretty normal for aristocratic women of past ages, leaving them free to continue participating in high-status social life while still producing heirs.

We need to consider alternatives because until we return to times of subsistence poverty and small farming, traditional marriages won’t be attractive to most people, especially not men.

As bitterly as red pillers complain about female sexual adventuresses, none of them want to go back to bringing home the bacon for a lifetime to a surly wife he’s chained to.  Most men enjoy the load taken off their shoulders by female economic independence.  When it comes to meeting girls nobody really wants to go back to asking the father’s permission to talk to her.

The popular imagination seems only capable of conceiving of either our present feminist dystopia or rigid traditionalism nobody really likes.  A solution might involve the creation of a new type of society that is functional in the modern environment.
A beginning requirement is to re-evaluate the balance of power between the sexes.  Otherwise we have our present dark age of soft harems and millions of incel basement dweller males.
Until we deal with fundamental contradictions in our present society, we will be locked in a dysgenic and social downward spiral until we go the way of Ancient Rome.

9 responses to “Career Women and Dysgenics

  1. Park Slope Dad June 24, 2017 at 12:15 pm

    “Also, there could be subsidized in-home nannies instead of daycare for high IQ women so lady scientists don’t have to spend a couple years changing diapers or nursing. This would help reduce the basic conflict of female fertility with self-actualizing work. A setup like this was actually pretty normal for aristocratic women of past ages, leaving them free to continue participating in high-status social life while still producing heirs.”
    I saw the benefits of this (default) social policy while living in Asia. Not only do we have historical precedent in Western society, but this how the entire developing world is structured: every middle-class-and-above family has some sort of domestic assistance. These workers come from the same class that is paid to do nothing in developed countries. I would also add that close personal contact with middle class families benefits the children of the domestic employees. And in the West, our ingrained sense of noblesse oblige about the poor and especially poor children would magnify these personal benefits for many.
    My wife works in VC while I stay home with three kids (both of us are Ivy grads, to provide an easy marker of social/intellectual fitness). I couldn’t be happier. I do think that we over-emphasize the impact of being a woman on childrearing. For one thing, I would at the very least say I am a more qualified stay-at-home parent than almost any nanny or daycare provider in the entire US. I also think that many men would find this work incredibly fulfilling, especially many high IQ men who have essentially dropped out of middle/upper-middle class society because they would rather read, watch movies, and pursue hobbies than engage in a careerism that don’t fit their personalities or sensibilities. These sorts of artistic and literary inclinations lend themselves exceedingly well to childrearing. Also, reading and talking to your children is the best vaccination against the worst dogmas of the times.
    My wife is more intelligent than 99% of humans, so it would be ridiculous for her to not contribute to society in the manner that she can contribute best. She doesn’t work because she has been tricked by society or anything along those lines — she would be driven mad at home. And I know that is the case for a lot of women, even those in non-self-actualizing jobs. Also, as an aside, I have noticed from spending my life in close proximity to large concentrations of high IQ women that they tend to be more attractive than average or low IQ women, and this is borne out by research.
    And in the interest of fairness, rather than a world where 50% of people do not work, I would personally prefer a world where all people worked half-time. In any case, since many homes would still require two incomes, I do think subsidized in-home nannies as a government policy that would greatly benefit society. And all that needs to happen is to take individuals currently receiving government subsidies amounting to a salary and require them to work.

    • Sam J. June 25, 2017 at 5:00 am

      I think it’s great that you are staying home with the kids. it would be be a big step if more Women felt the same way you’re Wife did.

    • Sam J. June 25, 2017 at 9:59 am

      This might interest you if you’re the survivalist sort. Also a neat way to teach your kids to cook something in a camp out fashion.

      http://www.survivalplus.com/foods/Saving-Money-With-A-Thermos-Bottle.htm

      • Sam J. June 25, 2017 at 10:05 am

        Don’t miss Kurt Saxons other good links. Under survival foods is the fantastic

        RAISING CATFISH IN A BARREL-Great for kids. Only requires two barrels. Just the idea of catfish in a barrel makes me giddy.

        The Perfect 3.3 Cent Breakfast-A great essay on sprouting grains for vitamins.

    • purpletigerbot June 25, 2017 at 4:38 pm

      Meh. You both are outliers. You could make any sort of setup work. All that matters is you are producing children.

    • danielchieh June 28, 2017 at 4:32 pm

      I also think that many men would find this work incredibly fulfilling, especially many high IQ men who have essentially dropped out of middle/upper-middle class society because they would rather read, watch movies, and pursue hobbies….
      Estrogenic poisoning in the water must have spread further than we thought.

  2. infowarrior1 June 25, 2017 at 8:58 am

    High IQ men are reproducing above replacement and High IQ women are the opposite:
    http://atavisionary.com/career-women-are-dysgenic/

    If income is a good proxy for intelligence. And they seem to be inversely correlated. So should this continue IQ will probably end up tied to the male sex.

  3. Ex-Ranza June 27, 2017 at 8:23 pm

    I’ve wondered why the middle class and above used to (and still do outside the west) hire nannys instead of spending more time with their kids.
    Don’t they have a higher investment parenting strategy compared to the proles (who are more r-selected)?
    Amongst low proles it is common for young mothers to keep drinking, partying, and rutting while the grandparents are made to carry the burden of childrearing.
    Aren’t the middle classes and above worried about their kids picking up prole values and tastes?
    Imagine a surgeon coming home from the hospital to find his children talking about lottery ticket numbers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: