The following is taken from a correspondence with a man from another English speaking country which is being transformed by feminism.
We have already seen a number of unexpected results from the social changes of the last half of the 20th century. We know that the results will not be what was intended. But we have enough prelimiary data to begin to speculate the outcomes of current trends.
Here is one such speculation. The general topic was sexual freedom, and the context was discussion about why women keep choosing the kind of men they keep complaining about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The thing that women find attractive in men is men's command of the unknown. THE THING THAT IS ATTRACTIVE ABOUT MEN IS WHAT THEY MIGHT BECOME.
The thing that men find attractive in women is in women as sustainers of the known, and everything that that is associated with (eg, warmth, nurturance, vulnerability, etc). THE THING THAT IS ATTRACTIVE ABOUT WOMEN IS IN WHAT THEY ARE
"Sexual freedom" absolves women from their responsibilities as filters of variety. They become the choosers of losers, the devolutionary force of humanity.
/- I ask that you consider the following possiblities
1) The purpose of a filter is two-fold. It must not only block passage of something, it must allow passage of something else. Perhaps women's responsibilities have changed to pass more variety, WHAT MEN MIGHT BE, and block more predictability.
2) Perhaps right now what the human race needs IS MORE variety rather than less.
3) Industrialization has proven to be an absolute nightmare for the human race, and it has hastened and intensified a long standing trend for the accumulation of ever increasing amounts of durable wealth in the hands of an ever smaller percentage of the population.
4) The consumption curve is expanding geometrically not only with regard to the food supply, but also with respect to energy consumption and depletion of natural resources. At our CURRENT levels of consumption, we are destroying 17,000 species per year. In 100 more years, half of all the species alive on earth today will be extinct.
5) Industrialization is an abrupt discontinuity in "human progress". It has totally changed our "ecosystem" in the broadest sense of that term. Today the "ecosystem" that the majority of the citizens of western industrialized technology driven countries inhabit is entirely artificial. What was adaptive in the history environment may be maladaptive in the one we inhabit today.
6) Nothing that we face today can be categorized as "known", therefor attempting to sustain the "known" is not only futile, but may be dangerous.
7) I made the comment before about the slow rate of technological change keeping all cultures "synchronized" and how the advent of technology de-synchronized everything. Perhaps we suffer now from too much stability rather than too little.
8) I have stressed the point many times that the social values which included the disregard of sluts and sluttishness was also one which operated in a relatively high degree of survival stress from mortality. We have an omnivorous scavenger here in the US called a raccoon. Having killed most of the normal predators of these creatures, we have seen a burgeoning population of them around cities where garbage is plentiful. However, they now go through cycles of mass die-off from disease because the gene pool is not constantly being culled, and periodic disruptions to their fertility cycles. Live births will suddenly begin to WAY disproportionately favor one sex over the other - either a very high percentage of females, or mostly males.
I would be seriously skeptical of the idea that the sex in abundance is due to any sort of random chance. A decrease in the female population will favor increased aggression among males. An increase will favor the more passive males.
9) Right now we have the first population of a generation of young males ( in the US ) to hit the breeding years without a major war to weed out the most aggressive. The net effect is to decrease the number of potentially available females per male. The effect is small, but there. The Vietnam war took out nearly half a million men of one age cohort, 90% of them with post-war effects. The current generation has lost none. A decrease in the relative number of females increases competition among the males, favoring the most aggressive.
10) During the 3 generations which spanned the two world wars and Vietnam, the increase in the available female ratio favored the more passive males. In the 1960s, Mailer noted that we had a "crisis of masculinity" in this country. We had been breeding the docile type males required by the factory floor.
11) With the fall of industrialization, which began as long ago as the late 1950s, this passive type male suddenly became maladaptive.
12) The transition from a manufacturing ( goods based ) economy to a "service or information" economy completely altered the "ecosystem" without people realizing it. Before the transition to being a nation of "handlers", there was about one "promotion" available for every 10 workers. Climbing the "corporate ladder" of incomes involved following the rules, keeping your mouth shut, and having social connections. Anybody who did these 3 things could assume steady upward progress ( mobility ).
13) By the early 90s, the expansion of the workforce and elevated income expectations had reduced the promotion/worker ratio to 1/30. It was projected to be 1/50 by the end of the decade. This was before GATT and we began exporting our manufacturing base overseas.
14) "Downsizing" and exporting jobs has reached frenzy proportions. There simply are no more companies to create the high-paying jobs to absorb the number of college graduates. If I had a son contemplating college today, I would do everything I could to discourage him. He would face 5x the competition for lower real wages than when this whole paradigm got established.
15) I think the boys who are skipping college are smarter than we are. They don't have any "history" to revere and are making far smarter choices than we are trying to foist on them. Their favorite "toys" are video games which utilize their historic spatial-kinesthetic advantage over women.
16) The entire industrial economy is headed for collapse. These boys are ahead of the curve.
17) Men our age can't see it because of the blind spots created by the sacred cows of our value system.
18) The falsity of the feminist paradigm will come crashing down around their ears when the velocity economy collapses due to the fact that it simply isn't producing anything worth having any more, and no one can afford it anyway.
19) At that point, the most aggressive, hardest males with the lowest income expectations will have the reproductive advantage.
20) Industrialization is the force causing "society" to de-evolve. Actually, it is only DE-evolving from our value system and a set of social values which do not apply in today’s environment.
21) Men like you and I have been royally fucked by this. The men that most embody the traditional values which made the system work are now not getting the rewards from it.
22) Life's a bitch some days.
23) We need to be cautious about turning DEscription into PREscription. Women's role in modulating stability may not always mean that they always drive to maximize stability.
Whether that is their "responsibility" or simply a function of the effect of their choice making, DEscribed after-the-fact, saying that women are "falling down on the job" assumes that we know what "should" be and that is somehow different from what is. Women, with their choices of mates, are creating the males of the future. I think the would-be social architects know a great deal less about the real result of their interventions than anyone imagines.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to Gender War, Sexuality, and Love
