FORWARD BASE B

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

Category Archives: Gender

Thoughts On Replacing Traditional Marriage In A Post-Scarcity Society

If we reflect for just a moment on human nature with all its in-born capriciousness and greed, we understand that a system where everyone stays in any kind of permanent alliance must be fastened in place by necessity.

Traditional marriage worked as a foundation of society when most people made a living growing their own food and going hungry if you screwed up in life was a real possibility.  Most people’s priority was achieving a state of security and holding onto it at all costs.  Kids naturally fit into that mission as free farmhands and as a retirement policy.  Most people lived in rural areas where there was a limit on the number of people they encountered and therefore a limit to temptations.  

There’s no precedent for even poor people wallowing in unlimited junk food or going online to window-shop for mates from the entire array of the human race—or a society that is majority urbanized where most people meet dozens of strangers every day and kids are just an endless suck of time and money.

In this dyamic environment, it may be that bringing back traditional marriage as the founding institution of society is untenable.  Already, as many people still bother to get married, it is in practice a 5-7 year alliance to raise a kid or two past infancy and move on.  Only for the upper middle classes and above does it remain a somewhat stable way to build wealth in a polite society.

Ironically, our better health and sanitation conditions disincentivize parental investment in offspring below the middle classes.  Until modern medicine child mortality had always been very high even with both parents putting in their best effort.  With the survival of children practically assured, the life-long union with its extreme opportunity costs becomes strategically obsolete.

Of course, nobody calculates like a Darwinian robot when they make life decisions and culture informs their perspective as well, but sexual strategies that are no longer evolutionarily optimal for most people must steadily lose market share even if no one knows quite why.  

The traditional marriage asks the female to get married young to have all her offspring with a single man who is unlikely to be her best possible option.  Or even if he were highest quality, she might still want to diversify her portfolio so her genes survive even if one type of Galapagos finch gets wiped out by a freak disaster.  When we remember a typical woman has less than 6 rounds in her revolver with all the forces of nature arrayed against the continuation of her line, the least she can do is have different types of ammo against different adversaries.  Or at least, she weighs the benefits of sibling inclusive fitness against the advantages of genetic diversification.

Men, meanwhile, are asked to bring home the bacon their whole lives and to stand by for decades as their wives get old instead of searching for a “younger model.”  The ability of females to defect any time and take the kids, or take his money and then get impregnated by another man without consequence undermines even what diminished rewards he enjoys.  
He too instinctually wants a variety of mates to spread his line to prevent a single disaster from wiping him out.  The modern high-information society means he can spend his energy trying for multiple low-investment sexual partners instead of sinking all his resources into one insecure prospect.

Neither sex really wants to restore traditional marriage under present conditions.  Tellingly, aging pickup artists are now among the biggest promoters of turning back the clock.  Many people still get married, but only under pressure as they start to get their first grey hairs and wrinkles.  When scarcity of resources isn’t enough to make people have weddings only scarcity of time suffices.  If we were young forever, successful pickup artists would be forever unrepentant.  It’s only when we worry about ending up without children or unpaid companionship for the last 4 decades of our lives that we’re suddenly willing to make the huge sacrifices marriage requires.

It has been pointed out for years in the manosphere that traditional marriage is a game for young people, especially young women at peak fertility.
People have been using the word “traditional” for a reason because the present institution bears little resemblance.  The old arrangement means cashing in your chips at the start of the game.  The modern version means playing the game as long as you can and then rushing to cash in at the last moment.  So if we draw a clear line in our definitions, we can see outside of some rural areas, real marriage has already been dead for decades.

The question then is how we might begin to organize mating markets in an urban, post-scarcity, semi-nomadic society, unless of course, we are counting on a collapse to “rescue” us.
Presently, we are faced with falling fertility rates and the costs imposed on society by single motherhood.
Also, monogamy serves as a truce between men so they can spend their energies collaborating against other groups rather than fighting among themselves over women. 

The reality on the ground already is the truce has been broken and we have seen a return to soft harems that would not have seemed out of place in the stone age with most women chasing a few chieftains.  This arrangement has already put society on a path to the intermittent warfare typical of hunter-gatherer societies.  There are simply too many men in our peaceful society.  Eventually, violence culls the herd until sexual market pressures are again tolerable.

As greatly as Black culture is maligned, I have noticed it has been a preview of where the rest of society will be in about 20 years.  The word “game” itself comes straight from ghetto slang.  As the rewards and accessibility of being a career drone drastically dwindle for men, even the sons of respectable families try to adopt drug dealer swagger to signal status.  This is by its nature a strategy that signals low investment because high investment signals he has few options.

Since modern day marriage is associated with balding cubicle schlubs rushing to settle before it’s too late, the institution itself becomes uncool.  Even if all feminist legislation was done away with tomorrow there would be no grand reversal.  Doing away with no-fault divorce might actually send men running away even faster.

Traditional society rewarded men and gave them status but this also came with huge responsibilities that were expected to consume their entire lives.  So even as we see internet personalities indulge in nostalgia, hardly any of them actually take the plunge themselves.  Many of them talk tough about protecting any daughters they may have, but not a one of them wants to go back to asking the father’s permission to court a girl.

A workable new system might be one that secures mating rights for men with desirable qualities, but doesn’t force them to spend the rest of their lives breaking their backs so the wife can watch daytime TV.  Perhaps all the benefits a single mother currently enjoys would be conditional on having her kids with socially sanctioned men in good standing with the tribe.  If she bred with outlaws or blood enemies, access to benefits would be witheld and free abortions made readily available.  Most of them would get the hint.

Even in ancient Rome subsidies and legislation did very little to revive traditional marriage.  Once people aren’t afraid of starving, personal freedom and unfettered mate selection becomes priceless.  Women would rather work full-time to make their own money than have a provider if they think they can get the best genes that way.  As we can see with ghetto welfare, though, subsidies are highly effective at boosting fertility when they don’t require anyone to seal permanent alliances.

So, a future system might be structured around giving women the illusion of choice by carefully pre-selecting their dating pool.  Status is artificially bestowed on men easily enough.  A mediocre man has an officer’s badge pinned to his shirt-front and suddenly he’s never lonely again.  In the neo-tribal society, male status would be managed very deliberately along with subsidies to channel female mating choice in desirable ways even as she thinks it was her own idea all along.

As for paternal involvement, I learned a few things by listening to black co-workers talk about their baby mommas.  Smooth operators who were broke but had no entangling ties could move seamlessly from one woman’s house to another with as much access to his children as he desired.  This struck me in stark contrast to white schlubs who have to petition the courts to see the one kid they had with a woman who divorced him.

The married man’s need to beg makes him appear low-status even if he earns a good salary.  If he was free to withdraw his presence and his funds, he would be freely invited into her house.  High-status men would end up with multiple children by different women and he would be at leisure to identify his most promising offspring and invest in them most while still having time to focus on supporting the society.

Male sexual emancipation from the provider marriage might also serve some use in undermining overwhelming female political power.  As I have discussed previously, Western women already had extraordinary influence even before they got the vote because they had guaranteed access to husbands who were effectively chained to them.  Mycroft, one of my regular commenters, astutely pointed out that this position of total security from which to agitate was the cradle of the modern matriarchy and the cause behind millions of appeasing white knight males.  It may be necessary in a modern patriarchy to sever female relationship security so they cannot press relentlessly for their own selfish agenda without facing consequences.

With a tribal dating pool, some men would effectively have harems, but there would be a clear obligation among the brotherhood to get even the stragglers laid from time-to-time—if loyalty is to be expected of them.  The core idea would be that the mating market reflect the male hierarchy. 

Of course, not everything can be done with incentives and loose controls, but the trouble with a system of hard coercion is it is more energetically expensive by far and requires diligent upkeep to sustain.  So the question is that which kings often asked wandering scholars back in the Chinese era of warring states: What is the softest touch by which effective rule can be implemented?
Failing that, though, there’s always Islam waiting in the wings.

Female Power and the Vote

Before female suffrage there had already been a huge and influential temperance movement for decades.  It was partly the cause of sanctimonious WASPs trying to sabotage the finer things in life for Catholic immigrants.
More importantly, though, it was staunchly backed by legions of matronly housewives who resented their husbands spending money at the pub instead of on her kids.

The prominence of the temperance movement shows us that women had great political influence long before they got the vote.  Not to mention, history is replete with concubines and mistresses who molded the most iron-fisted emperors to their wills.
Average Joes were like play-doh in their hands when it came to pursuing a political agenda.  Moral pontificating from ladies’ associations backed by sob stories about drunk and abusive husbands was enough to trigger vast armies of white knights into action.

Female suffrage, then, was overkill.  The temperance movement grew from an already powerful political lobby into an overwhelming force that banned alcohol altogether, with disastrous results.  With females given the vote themselves soon afterwards, they were all but crowned as empresses.

As we would expect, the West has become a de facto matriarchy.  Women bloc vote more than men since they are by nature more collectivist and can recruit the millions of white knights who are already under their control.  

 If we look at the particulars of the female vote, we notice there is one great divide in the matriarchy.  Single and married women play a great game of tug-of-war over society’s resources.  Married women mostly try to enable the wellbeing of their husbands and families.  Single women, on the other hand, try to provision themselves by using government as an extractive proxy provider.  Worse, they form traitorous alliances with hostile outside tribes to pry even more concessions from the married woman side of the matriarchy and the masses of hapless male helots.

An eternal truth, though, is matriarchies last only until the next invasion.  A society that doesn’t make its men the primary shareholders, always loses.  As much as people like to speak of fairness and equality, women simply don’t have the same territorial impulses common in men.  Whenever some bereaved band of unfortunates comes begging at the gates, women evaluate the situation through the nurturing instinct rather than the male’s timeless drive to act as guardian.  The territory itself to some extent is naturally a male concept.  Females, in some sense, have no country, especially when they are young and single.  A conquerer who just butchered all the boys she grew up with will get her pregnant just fine.  He might even be an upgrade as far as her genes are concerned.

When the walled city is under attack, every man knows he will be killed or enslaved, his family dissolved, his property plundered if he’s on the losing side.  For young women, especially those without kids, the consequence of conquest has been the inconvenient shuffling from one sheikh’s tent to another’s.  Even older women are not expected to risk their lives on society’s front line as men are though they have outlived their immediate usefulness to mother nature.  Modern society erroneously continues to assume they are involved in nurturing young ones even as they age.  

Women simply don’t have as much skin in the game.  As a perpetually protected class they haven’t undergone the brutal culling of life and death struggle for power, status, and territory every male ancestor has survived through back to y chromosomal Adam.  Women just don’t understand high stakes and danger in the same way or with the same sense of urgency that goes down to every male’s very marrow.  The way women fear rape by undesirable men to the very bottom of their psyche, men fear being conquered and disenfranchised.  

First the tribe must protect its holdings, then other issues may be settled.
At the very least, we could recognize the incentives and natural tendencies that make single and childless women unreliable potential traitors and thereby strip them of the vote and bar them from political office.  Principles aside, we might hope this would sufficiently compensate for the vast underground reservoir of female soft power that has always been there.

When weighing whether someone should vote, whatever their sex, we might ask: “What happens to them and their own if the walled city gets sacked?” Beyond that, we ought to test for judgment and intelligence.  After all, weak and stupid men were pawns of women anyway back in the “good old days” before women could vote.  Maybe it’s better a competent woman who owns property, has kids, and runs a business can vote while a man of poor character and weak wits who she’d manipulate with ease loses his vote.  Perhaps then we approach a somewhat more balanced equation where soft influence and hard power coincide.  Though the tribe is founded and defended by men, the reality of female power might then be incorporated within reason into a functional political system.

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.

How Girls Handle Money

“I held up a $20 bill and asked who wanted it. No one moved. A good 30 seconds later, one of the girls raised her hand and said, “We should make a rule about who gets it.”

Another girl raised her hand and declared, “It should go to the girl that got here first.”

Everyone looked around, and they all nodded in agreement.

We spent the next hour discussing how girls think about money and make decisions. Even when rules weren’t necessary, the girls refused to act and instead focused their energy on creating rules about who got the money.

Clearly, if men had been in the room, the women wouldn’t have stood a chance.

I asked, “Why?” The group preferred rules because rules establish a system of norms. “Then,” one astute girl laughed, “we can play within established parameters and still manipulate the rules to get our way.”

Instinctively, I responded, “And still be considered good girls?”

Without missing a beat, the group nodded in agreement.” Link

‘China Does Not Have Any Suitable Men For Me’

http://www.chinasmack.com/2008/stories/china-does-not-have-any-men-suitable-for-me.html#comments

Having said this much, that the environment is good, material things are good, this third point is what I value the most: I simply like Western men. Ever since I was small, I liked watching Western movies, such as Roman Holiday” or “Gone with the Wind,” and I liked watching the Westerners in the movies, their faces are all so sharp and distinctive, especially their charming coloured eyes, their straight pronounced noses, their tight smooth lips.

….

In summary, I simply want to marry a Westerner, at best an American, but European is not bad either. As for  criteria…I am not very demanding, it is no big deal even if his education is lower than mine, and no specific requirements about his work…isn’t the monthly salary for washing dishes at McDonald’s over a thousand USD? This can still allow him to buy a car and house. If this isn’t possible, I will just find a divorced man and be willing to be a stepmother. Besides, Western children have a strong sense of independence, at least they will not let me always clean up after them and cater to their every whim, right?

 Coming 2013 – RooshV goes to Shanghai

%d bloggers like this: