FORWARD BASE B

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

Tag Archives: genes

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subsidies on female employment are removed and laws hostile to fathers and blank-check rape and harassment laws are repealed.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.

Why Do People Think Human Evolution Has Stopped?

I can’t count how many times someone has remarked glibly and smugly with glazed eyes and a vacant smile “But we have modern medicine/modern society now.  Human evolution has stopped.”  I’m stunned every time.  I’m used to stupidity, but even otherwise intelligent people will say this to me.  Do they choose not to think?
Do they choose to refuse to understand that nature never takes a holiday and that our genes are locked in eternal competition for survival?  Do they not understand that no one will care about their ‘careers’ past the day they retire?  That our ‘accomplishments’ will be forgotten as soon as we are dead?

Changes in stressors merely change the selectors!  Heavy rains are good for some plants, bad for others.  Socially awkward growing up, I keenly felt the cold steel of Darwin’s axe on my neck every day of my entire youth.  I was trapped in a prison of society’s blazing hostility for over a decade.  I was never allowed to delude myself that everyone succeeds.  Before I was a teenager it seemed I stood on the edge of that ignominious trash pit failed specimens are dumped into by nature’s callous hand.  I’ve never, ever forgot it.

This is, in itself, selection at its best.  Those capable of further reflection will have a major advantage over those that buy into the popular platitudes.

The selective barrier I see in modern affluent societies is for an abstract appreciation of the essentials.

For instance, the type A go-getter that always goes for that promotion but never has any kids, dying out as completely as the dinosaurs, no better than the wino on the street corner, no different than a young man brutally mowed down in battle.
In past generations, the type A’s instincts would have been optimally suited towards breeding with the best mates.

Now, however, a more abstract way of thinking about one’s genetic destiny is required for success…or the total absence of thinking, allowing one to rut without care on the animal level.  These are the two present viable formulae for genetic success in the Modern West.

With humans, we give primacy to ‘environment’ and insist on a ‘blank slate.’
We can breed dogs specifically to herd sheep yet do not believe in breeds of people that have come about from the demands of specialization over the last millennia of civilization?

Childish, williful ignorance at its best.

Those who determine the future of the genes, determine the future of the species.

 

 

%d bloggers like this: