As a lurker of the Love Shy forum I share the sentiment of many of the members here and benefit from the advice present there. Though I agree with the theme and critical aspects of the research there is a problem. The research put forth can all too easily be swept away in a political crap storm, as a political side had been taken in the very into. Worse yet, all that is needed is a bias reviewer to nick pick something and this article can be trounced.
Possible attack include:
“It is well known to readers of this journal that white birthrates worldwide have suffered a catastrophic decline in recent decades.”
This opening line is just ripe for someone to proclaim racism as a reaction. It’s only a matter of time before some say that the perceived exclusion of other races is racist.
“Many well-meaning conservatives agree in deploring the present situation, but do not agree in describing that situation or how it arose.”
That someone is going to be liberals as a political stance has been taken. Such political conflict will utterly bury and obscure any data presented.
“One 1994 survey found that “while men projected they would ideally like six sex partners over
the next year, and eight over the next two years, women responded that their ideal would be to have only one partner over the next year. And over two years? The answer, for women, was still one.”1 Is this not evidence that women are naturally monogamous?”
This paragraph is improperly cited. If a survey is to be used as a source, cite the survey not the book containing the survey. Worse yet, any data from that survey is devalued due to a common error. Expect this to be used as a claim that the author does not demonstrate competence.
Ok well Ardia asked for us to read this and comment so I did so, and hope he will return the favor in the future. The Sexual Utopia in Power should be a classic as it has much to offer. It is unflinching in it looking at these issues and I would differently recommended it as something all MRAs should read. As when looking at such things you tend to talk about what is not exactly right and I will do so, but this shouldn’t be taken as anything but a wish for it to be an even better effort.
An important aspect of hypergamy is that it implies the rejection of most
males. Women are not so much naturally modest as naturally vain. They are
inclined to believe that only the “best” (most sexually attractive) man is worthy
of them. This is another common theme of popular romance (the beautiful
princess, surrounded by panting suitors, pined away hopelessly for a “real” man—until, one day…etc.).- DEVLIN
What is a bit missed here is the fact that women are trait conceited when looking for mates. By this I mean they are looking for outside beauty traits, not inside traits. They will thus dumb down the race if you let them. They are so looks obsessed, or insecure, that they will take their world down if they are not stopped from trying to impress other females and themselves with a good looking husband and kids. This can be seen in how mothers get giddy for the good-looking sons in their family, and try to get them to be modals. Males are obsessed with good looking women as well, as we all know quite well, but after a time the character of such women will come into play as men’s instincts to have sex with many women comes into play as a woman gets older. And when men have children they don’t push for females to become male like, as often as the other way round. It is women that cross the kids up with one size fits all effeminacy.
Women also use fashion and group praise to choose the successful males for them. They don’t find a diamond in the rough male and help him become full diamonds, but wait for one to perfect himself, and then grant him a reward for his success. So women actually like to be a trophy wife (but not admit it), and it is not men who want go for a trophy wife only. By jumping on the bandwagon she shows no loyalty, no wise foresight, and no mind of her own in following fashion in choosing a male that others have said is special with fame or wealth.
Control of sex habits: In the first place, women tend to be better at it. This is not due to any moral superiority of the female, as many men are pleased to believe, but to their
lower levels of testosterone and their slower sexual cycle: ovulation at the rate of one gamete per month. - DEVLIN
Also should be added is the crass fact that a woman must only spread her legs to mate endlessly, while a man must get a rise out to do the deed. If sexual appetite is set by how much sex can be had in the length then we are dealing with a false modal, as women are built to just sit there and it is men that must work it more.
What, after all, is the alternative to the double standard? Is it practical to give sexually desperate young men exclusive responsibility to ensure no act of fornication ever takes place? Or should women be locked up to make it impossible? Logically, a woman must either have no mate, one mate, or more than one mate. The first two choices are socially accepted; the third is not. Such disapproval involves no coercion, however. Women who insist on mating with multiple men may do so. But they are responsible for that behavior and its consequences. - DEVLIN
Yet because of their skills to play the victim or the helpless type can we ever make a system of equality that will be able to withstand flawed human beings’ need to favor the outside and soft sounding women or children? Unlikely, so equality can’t be enforced unless we take the statist role of enforcing equality on those who side with effetes out of instincts, in a huge measure, thus being no better in this area than those playing at social engineering now.
Women’s complaints about double standards refer only to the few which seem to favor men. They unhesitatingly take advantage of those which favor themselves. Wives in modern, two-income marriages, for example, typically assume that “what I earn is mine; what he earns is ours.” Young women insist on their “independence,” but assume they are entitled to male protection should things get sticky.
But the ultimate expression of modern female hypocrisy is the assertion of a right to adultery for women only. This view is clearly implied in much contemporary self-help literature aimed at women. Titles like Get Rid of Him and Ditch That Jerk are found side-by-side Men Who Can’t Love: How to Spot a Commitmentphobic Man. In short, I demand loyalty from you, but you have no right to expect it of me. Many women seem sincerely unable to sense a contradiction here. Perhaps, as Schopenhauer thought, the female is not naturally provided with a sense of justice. Justice, is, after all, a virtue of leaders; it is of little use in nurturing children. - DEVLIN
So by this one should take a very large portion of women are at their very core unjust, and seem unaware of this fact or are in total denial, so how can we have equality? They want the best of equality and the best of old fashion ideas. Is this not a child or a tyrannical soul, and is this not why someone has targeted them for empowerment?
RETURN OF THE PRIMITIVE
Furthermore, many women are sexually attracted to promiscuous men because, not in spite, of their promiscuity. This can be explained with reference to the primate pack. The “alpha male” can be identified by his mating with many females. This is probably where the sluts-and-studs double standard argument came from—not from any social approval of male promiscuity, but from female fascination with it. Male “immorality” (in traditional language) can be attractive to females. Thus, once polygamous mating begins, it tends to be self-reinforcing.
Students of animal behavior have learned that the presence of a female decoy or two near a male makes real females more likely to mate with that particular male. Among human females also, nothing succeeds like success. - DEVLIN
It is simpler than the above. Women are generally & simply part of "group think" creatures and seem unable to change their insides to be independent as often as males, and only change their outsides endlessly as if to hide the fact that on the insides they’re very much the same. Men being much wider in their types than women. Men by nature or God are in reaction to women and is often her opposite: brave to her coward, different to her group think, high energy to her slowness, untalkative to her talktiveness and so on. PC science wishes to point out there is cross over, yes, but that doesn’t make this the norm. I am generalizing here not blanketing!
Shrewd women have long known how to manipulate the male protective urge for their own ends. No one will sign up for a campaign against women or children, but many men can easily be made to condemn other men. - DEVLIN
Unlike the early portions of this effort this section is quite vague and lacks the history of chivalry, which can be found here: http://www.honornetwork.com/Foxes_Lions_Chivalry.html
if you read the above link you will see Chivalry is at its very core an idea made for women and propagated by women and effete males onto honorable men to bring a set of ideas that are unclear into the male word of preferred clarity, so as to wage power grabs in a confused place of effete culture that is simply unstably due to it being fashion based (as chivalry makes it so). As fashion is set by effete feelings, which is based on female menstruation, fear, moods and more, so is chivalry.
Back in my own family tree, for example, there was a family with three daughters who grew up on a farm adjoining three others. As each girl came of age, she married a boy from one of the neighboring farms. They did not expect much in a husband. It is probable all three went through life without ever seeing a man who looked like Cary Grant.
But by the 1930s millions of women were watching Cary Grant two hours a week and silently comparing their husbands with him. For several decades since then the entertainment industry has continued to grow and coarsen. Finally the point has been reached that many women are simply not interested in meeting any man who does not look like a movie star. While it is not possible to make all men look like movie stars, it is possible to encourage women to throw themselves at or hold out for the few who do, i.e., to become sluts or spinsters, respectively. Helen Gurley Brown raked in millions doing precisely this. The brevity of a woman’s youthful bloom, combined with a mind not yet fully formed at that stage of life, always renders her vulnerable to unrealistic expectations. The sexual revolution is in part a large-scale commercial exploitation of this vulnerability.
One would get the idea looking at Cosmopolitan magazine covers that women were obsessed with giving men sexual pleasure. This would come as news to many men. Indeed, the contrast between what women read and their actual behavior towards men has become almost surreal. The key to the mystery is that the man the Cosmo-girl is interested in pleasing is imaginary. He is the affluent fellow with movie star looks who is going to fall for her after one more new makeover, after she loses five more pounds or finds the perfect hairdo. In the meantime, she is free to treat the flesh-and-blood men she runs into like dirt. Why make the effort of being civil to ordinary men as long as you are certain a perfect one is going to come along tomorrow? Men of the older generation are insufficiently aware how uncouth women have become. I came rather late to the realization that the behavior I was observing in women could not possibly be normal—that if women had behaved this way in times past, the human race would have died out.
What happens when a contemporary woman, deluded into thinking she deserves a movie star husband, fails not only to find her ideal mate, but any mate at all? She does not blame herself for being unreasonable or gullible, of course; she blames men. A whole literary genre has emerged to pander to female anger with the opposite sex. Here are a few titles, all currently available through Amazon.com: Why Men Are Clueless, Let’s Face It, Men Are @$$#%\c$, How to Aggravate a Man Every Time, Things You Can Do with a Useless Man, 101 Reasons Why a Cat Is Better Than a Man, 101 Lies Men Tell Women, Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them, Kiss-off Letters to Men: Over 70 Zingers You Can Use to Send Him Packing, or—for the woman who gets sent packing herself—How to Heal the Hurt By Hating. - DEVLIN
This is the best part of this classic effort by Devlin, for MRAs it points to the fact we have heard shouted at us in the media, that media isn’t that powerful. It is powerful to the weak minded and the weak minded are more effete and thus to make males more effete is good for business (as they become more mindless consumerists), and in addition it is good to make men effete for the power hungry too, as it makes men simply work with those in power under any system (just like women) who haven’t in recorded history ever lead a rebellion from the front line!
Now my work has covered how when societies become effete they fall apart all throughout history, as fox types in the population and in leadership in high proportion leads to a dog-eat-dog world on every occasion, so this has happened before and can’t be regarded as special and unique to our time.
This is where we have arrived after just one generation of female sexual liberation. Many men are bewildered when they realize the extent and depth of feminine rage at them. What could be making the most affluent and pampered women in history so furious? Kick a friendly dog often enough and eventually you have a mean dog on your hands. - DEVLIN
Actually there has been more than kicks going on towards the dog male of our modern culture, click here: http://the-code.wikispaces.com/The+Men%27s+Rights+Magna+Charta
What were our bachelor’s female contemporaries doing all those years while he was an impoverished, lonely stripling who found them intensely desirable? Fornicating with dashing fellows who mysteriously declined to “commit,” marrying and walking out on their husbands, or holding out for perfection. Now, lo and behold, these women, with their youthful looks gone and rapidly approaching menopause, are willing to go out with him. If they are satisfied with the free meals and entertainment he provides, he may be permitted to fork over a wedding ring. Then they will graciously allow him to support them and the children they had by another man for the rest of his life. (I have seen a woman’s personal ad stating her goal of “achieving financial security for myself and my daughters.”) Why in heaven’s name would any man sign up for this? As one man put it to me: “If the kitten didn’t want me, I don’t want the cat.” - DEVLIN
That’s a very chivalrous description of what men face, it is more a Medusa than a mere cat. Women love to compare themselves to cats and the writer still allows women to define what image we give of them here as the man using these terms is being nice. These bad women are better described with the ancient mythological form of the Medusa, as this representation, that they occasionally pride themselves for on Halloween, prefer to almost always to shy away from in its unnerving truth in describing their bad side of the female psyche. The male brute has a balancing agent the weasel woman.
Western woman has become the new “white man’s burden,” and the signs are that he is beginning to throw it off. We have arrived at a rare historical moment when we men have the upper hand in the battle of the sexes.
Sex is too important a matter to be left to the independent judgment of young women, because young women rarely possess good judgment. The overwhelming majority of women will be happier in the long run by marrying an ordinary man and having children
than by seeking sexual thrills, ascending the corporate heights, or grinding out turgid tracts on gender theory. A woman develops an emotional bond with her mate through the sexual act itself; this is why arranged marriages (contrary to Western prejudice) are often reasonably happy. Romantic courtship has its charms, but is finally dispensable; marriage is not dispensable. - DEVLIN
The word he is looking for, but is afraid to utter (I think) is patriarchy, patriarchy now patriarchy tomorrow patriarchy until women come to be equal to men in deeds, and not in desire or in political circles (to only have false equality used to divide men). Everyday women can have equality in deeds and do not want it. They seem to want equality like that of a fashion show to wear down the runway and show off to their friends. Women seem to have as much pride as men in the end, after all the games.
The good men may do separately is small compared with what they may do collectively -
None of us is smart as all of us-
Old Japanese Proverb
Yes, this is an important point. Most women want a full diamond, instead of helping a half diamond grow. This is very anti-civilization as higher education, advanced internships take time before a man can become independent at a superior level. Without knowing the details precisely, I would assume, that before, a meritocracy counteracted this tendency somewhat.
But now every tom dick and harry (and sally, jane and mary) goes to college. People spend a third of their lives in socialized institution that are anything but meritocracies (and that is followed by 'progressive' taxes). Under such conditions, a fledgling engineering/computer science/non-useless non-politicized major student has nothing going for him. Indeed hes a net negative spending his time studying compared to arts students who can afford to party the time away.
I would assume that before a meritocracy counteracted this tendency somewhat. But now every tom dick and harry (and sally, jane and mary) goes to college. People spend a third of the life in socialized institution that are anything but meritocracies (and that is followed by 'progressive' taxes). Under such conditions, a fledgling engineering/computer science/non-useless non-politicized major student has nothing going for him. Indeed hes a net negative spending his time studying compared to arts students who can afford to party the time away.-Ardia
I think they are in fact trying to do away with a meritocracy, to replace it with pure specialization and indoctrination. This is why we must create our own meritocracy, though with no salary and thus pure knowledge & honor satisfying, to counteract the mess being created. Insecure enginners don't ask for bigger salaries, and don't start companies that revival established ones. If they are confused by women and made more passive by endless social engineering they become better cogs. While the outgoing & socialible skilled ones, or ones with pure amibition, become part of the system's political class, and with the wealth and power of the establishment they get their satisfaction for amibition and fame fully satisfied.
Logic (non-specialized) and honor is lost for most, and logic with a decidedly fox-type of thinking is only maintained by a miniority of the establishment.
The good men may do separately is small compared with what they may do collectively -
None of us is smart as all of us-
Old Japanese Proverb
I had a quick skim of the pdf, much of it is standard text as used by the likes of Rob Fedders when he wants to put across the basic truths of the human sexual deal..
Good stuff of course, but I find it rather strange that one of the most compelling reasons to practice monogamy and the sort of culture that is promoted here is not even mentioned..
Indeed, this very reason is the reason that many previous "sexual utopias" of the "free for all" in the past have rapidly adapted to the (then) western standards of monogamy and chastity..
The sexual free for all is destructive of society, but, on a more personal level, it is also destructive of the individuals who partake of it..
The VD rates are a serious reason behind the retreat of many from the sexual free for all..
I personally never fail to be absolutely appalled at the way that many women will take a random cock without even the rubber riding hat that the likes of my father used to insist on..
I find that the current phenonema of internet porn is showing up a massive problem with sexual practices that are absolutely and totally unacceptable to ANYONE with more than enough brain cells to work out the risks involved in multiple partner encounters for "recreation" (I could post you links to sites showing women being banged by 50 plus men in an hour, bareback off the streets, and they certainly dont look to be having a great time, other than the wage and the glory of it..)
I am no prude, (well, maybe I am in a strange sort of way!) but it is just common sense that this sort of activity, or general large scale sexualisation in such a way is not exactly necessary..
Dont make me laugh!! We have sexual hell!! Disease, abortion, shitty women with damaged personalities..
Shagging 500 plus women in a career of pork-warriorhood may be something i occasionally claim fame for, but, is it a boast or an admission?
All I can say, is that I know I have been much more choosey about who I fuck than even the average gent.. Hence, I have escaped the fate of some young men I know who have permanent disease status due to bad choices or perhaps not having such a good immune system..
I am a "virgins or whores" kinda guy..
I dont knowingly (and I make great efforts to ascertain status, which is not actually hard when you know what to say and in what order!) shaft women who are in the habit of shagging around, women who have shagged dodgy blokes, are married or whatever else would make them unsuitable..
Women are RUINED by promiscuity, it damages their bodies, maybe, but for sure, it damages their outlook..
Unless they are "proper" pro's, they end up being manipulative sluts and a bad choice for any man wanting to empty his sac.. And even worse when they are after that weedling wing..
Marry a slut, prepare for life as a servile mangina at best!!
What good has a life devoted to knobbing everything that moves ever done me?
Memories, bragging rights, tales of shame..
What use are they practically speaking when there is no longer any sense of "achievement" in spearing the bearded clam?
And when I think of all the other things I could have been doing with that time..
Its a horrific thought.. A wasted life?
I can honestly say, the only sex I have ever really enjoyed has been with the mothers of my kids, or with common street whores..
Recreational sex with sluts has never really done anything for me..
They aint pros, so they cant do sex right anyway.. and they aint decent women, so you cant train them up, nor would you want to waste time on them anyway!!
We have a problem..
Western society is full of crappy women who dont realise their true status is not between that of whores or women suitable to be wives and mothers..
It is much lower than both!!
"Sexual Utopia in Power" deserves more than a quick skim. It is deeper Rob Fedders's stuff. It is the first thing that I recommend anyone read about feminism.
Disease is actually one of the few positive aspects of promiscuity because it is evolution in action and improves the gene pool. Unfortunately this is more than compensated for by the poor selection of mates by women which greatly harms the gene pool.
The reason Devlin uses the phrase "sexual utopia" is that feminism was imagined to lead to a sexual utopia. But as Devlin points out, most imagined utopias turn out to be hell.
I could give it a more detailed critique, but it seems pretty sound generally from what i have read..
For some odd reason I cant add to the thread!
Nevertheless, I just wanted to say I have read it in detail and its pretty much similar to the sort of thing I have read or understood from my own observations over the years in its description of the "effects of feminism"..
Not sure I really agree with the model he presents of the "male sexual utopia" as that is not from what I have noted about mens nature a possibility under any reality for the vast majority of men, breaking marital relationships to enable men to have sex with many women would not create "harems" for men, as equal numbers of both sexes would mean that they would merely have "time share" access to women, does not take into account the feelings of men or women who while they may like the idea of having more choice, natural jealousy would preclude them from wanting to share...
The same goes for the female "sexual utopia" idea, it was never a realistic notion..
I am not even sure that "feminism" is the true culprit, we can always assume that the elite shapers of society had a hand to play in directing social attitudes, but the individuals shaped their behaviour towards the "immediate gratification" model of selfishness when social attitudes and also technology (invented by men) made such things possible with "limited implications" (legalised abortion, the pill, etc..)
The elite encouraged "individualism" in both men and women, and feminism was embraced by MEN eagerly as part of this selfishness..
Declining birthrates were deliberate policy of the elite. They noted the correlations between high populations and several damaging factors, namely POVERTY and WAR.. The west was "optimally populated" for the next 40 years following the major culls of two world wars and a brief baby boom following.. LOW DEATH RATES are more of a problem now, with massive numbers of retired and non productive elderly folk..
War has never been a popular pastime for men, who die in wars, nor is poverty (men seek to avoid it especially when they feel responsible for women and children, as they have always done..)..
So, the ways of feminism, were accepted, nay, actively enjoyed by the first few generations of men who rolled in the economic "doubling up" of earning power.. (while it worked that way!)
The serious failings with feminist statist ideas were always predictable by anyone with enough foresight, because quite simply, its a total fucking dumb ideology that was bound to burn its own tits off after 3 generations.. 3 generations of selfish fucks.. Who did they expect to keep them under control when the responsible generations had all died off? The Nordic states are getting to realise that the old work ethic of the protestants is just not there anymore in the "rights" based culture.. Even raising kids is a state job these days in their minds! The more you prop folk, the harder they lean!
But, that dumb ideology was appealing to men who did not like being traditional men, (too much responsibility) and women who thought men had it easier, hence, did not want to be "powerless" (money) women!!
So, they pulled the wool over the eyes of even quite intelligent sheeple..
Ideas to deal with the situation, such as the marraige strikes, breeding strikes, increasing selfishness and rejection of women by men are of course doomed and make matters worse in the long term for people all round..
The suggested solutions provided by the author, well, they are pretty much on the ball!!
It is rare to see anyone setting out such a pretty clear and hard to fault set of corrective measures..
However, of course, it is more likely that "feminism" will also simultaneously have to run its ugly course, and men will suffer, as men always have..
Before the advent of full-scale feminism, they suffered death at war, suffered in the work place etc..
Now, they suffer pretty miserable lives, but is that worse than wholesale slaughter of millions and tyranical work ethics?
Individuals, as ever, make their decisions on the micro-economic level..
That has to work within the constraints of the macro level laid down by the faux democrasy of the state..
The only way to tie the two ends together and get them working properly is the unthinkable..
Get rid of the vote for married women.
Give men the family headship they need, and the right to vote for their families interests..
The man is talking my language!!
Any woman or man who does not like that, well, they are welcome to carry on in feminists equalitarian "sexual utopia" and become miserable or extinct with the childless greers.. End of the line for feminism!
Love honour and obey..
That is the bottom line and the time-proven answer to the problem..
For those who know the score!! Men and women alike!
Those old bastards were not far wrong were they?
As Harry Patch, (last surviving WW1 soldier) used to tell the new soldiers when he did his tours of the camps aged 108.. "The idea of women fighting on the front is the most ridiculous and stupid notion.. Wars can decimate huge swathes of the men, but as long as the women folk are kept safe at home, the remaining men can get the population back up to the correct fighting level with a generation.. Kill your breeding stock, and you are buggered.. You may even bring the enemy home inside them!" (Or that was how my nephew recounted it to me anyway!!)
Pater, if you couldn't add to the other thread, please let me know what happened so I can fix it. You should still be able to move this thread into the other thread.
Yes Devlin understands that these "utopias" are not possible, which is his point.
I'm not going to comment about "the elite" since this goes in a direction that I am not interested in going.
Sounds like we agree on the rest except that I want to clarify what it means for feminism "to run its ugly course". What it means is the destruction of civilization, usually permanently. This has happened many times before. When civilizations fell, they almost never recovered. Rome/Italy is the only example of a place that I can think of that was civilized twice. Every other successful society became a basket case permanently. Visit Egypt today and look at the museum. They had a great civilization 4000 years ago. Today they are pathetic as a culture. In Mexico, they had the Olmecs, the Maya, and Aztecs, each from a different area and each more primitive than the preceding culture. My theory is that when a civilization falls, its co-alpha genes get wiped out. There is no good genetic material left to start a new culture. What was different about Rome? It had a key subculture, Christianity, that saved the right values and therefore saved some co-alphas. But Christianity grew when Rome was at its peak. It could not have grown as it did in a barbaric environment. We are now in a situation where most of the world has been absorbed into Western culture. If Western culture falls without any alternative subculture being formed, then I think this will be the permanent end of civilization. The time to address this really is now. In 100 years, I think it will be too late.
I tried to access the thread repeatedly but it kept coming up with an error message..
There was a note to say "inform us of this" which also produced the same error.. So I was not able to do that either..
I dont think the civilisation we have will "collapse" in the manner of other civilisations..
The west is, as we know "multicultural", so within the broader context of a nation, there are many "supported" or effectively independant subcultures.. These will take over in the battle for hegemony..
I dont know much about the collapse of civilisations, but I think much may be related to mass disease, crop failures and other events, or invasions from other civilisations..
At the same time, there have always been other civilisations that grow in time to take their place..
For example, if we take it as read that the roman civilisation was a great technical and social achievement in its heyday, with little competition, but collapsed for whatever reasons (lead poisoning of their leaders?)..
Then, it was eventually replaced and surpassed by other civilisations, even if it may have taken a long time..
The vikings and northen races were not developed in the same way, but, when populations increase, naturally, the folk start to become civilised by necessity..
Much of this is related to the food supplies, farming needs, etc..
I personally think the current excesses of feminism ARE still under check by the "patriarchy", it is merely a tool..
I see state promoted feminism as a form of "enforced chivalry" to women, a legally based model of what was previously voluntarily done by men.. And this is what men resent to most of all..
Men can either claim back their natural rights, (in the manner of subcultures, religious or other) or go along with allowing themselves to be mugged by the system..
Men have to work smart, because while feminism is in my view a mere "social blip" that will burn itself in the next few generations, what will follow is a purer, less gender divisive form of even greater state control..
Feminism is fucking men over now..
In the future, the "new world order" of megastatism will fuck over women just as effectively..
I think there will always be a "dual society" of folk who operate under the "male head of family" model and folk who operate under the "state headship" model..
I think there is that divide now. But it will become more pronounced in future as folk wise up and adapt..
We are living in a patriachal world, when we look at the true leaders of our world..
The domininance of feminist thinking and "matriachy" largely is an illusion of the folk who are seeing things from a more lowly viewpoint..
The logic of law and social control, will always be the domain of the higher males..
The feminists, I repeat, are mere tools to implement that control over the lower males..
And few folk genuinely give a damn about lower males..
Regarding the "elite", it is perhaps not necessary to discuss the nature of the elite etc for the prime purpose of this forum in creating the culture that is possible, but any discussion about the forces that shape societies cannot really avoid recognising that they are a strong influence on the direction of society and which values are taken on board and "enforced" by the heavy hand of the state..
We have had some trouble with Nabble so it make have been at a time when the database had problems. But you should be able to merge the threads now. Or I can do it if you prefer.
I'm not sure how much history you know, but in the book "Sex and Culture" Unwin makes a strong case that empires fell because they suffered the equivelent of feminism. Let me quote Unwin where he starts talking about Rome from the time after Augustus and you can tell me what you think:
In some parts of the Empire, however, the old Roman traditions were preserved. In Italy, Gaul, Illyria, and Spain, the old idea of the family was still put into practice. The ladies even did their hair in the old-fashioned way, long discarded by those who lived in the city. The sons of these women went to Rome, succeeded to high office, and controlled the Empire. They entered the senate and restored some of its old authority. From this provincial stock came Trajan, Hadrian, and the Antonines.
It is often supposed that in the second century the Roman Empire was at its strongest. These provincials were the men who gave it strength, conditions in the provinces being such as to produce social energy.
Then in their turn the provincials reversed the habits of their fathers by extending their sexual opportunity. Paederastry also was not unknown. The lack of energy displayed by their sons and grandsons is apparent in the records of the third century.
Yet once more there emerged a group of men who had spent their early years in an atmosphere of compulsory continence. I mean the Christians. They had survived many violent persecutions; eventually they dominated the Empire, which in the fourth century recovered the strength it had shown in the second century. The Edict of Milan may have been a political move, but Constantine was right in thinking that the Christians were the men on whom he should rely. Then the Christians in turn changed their habits. In the matter of post-nuptial regulations they compromised with civil authorities; they also encouraged, even commanded, their finest women to be sterile. Then the Teutons overran the Western Empire. These Teutons possessed, in regard to sexual regulations, the same absolutely monogamous ideas that the Sumerians, Babylonians, Athenians, and Romans had once possessed, and later discarded.
A little explanation is needed. Unwin published this in 1934. As an anthropologist, he discovered a perfect correlation between controlling female sexuality and societal development. But he could not understand the cause of this, so he wrongly attributed it to the idea the regulating female sexuality limits sexual opportunity for men and that this repressed sexuality is a source of energy. He reached this conclusion because he was influenced by Freud and because living in the 1930s, he could have no real understanding of what it is like to live in a society where the plague of feminism is in full force. This is why he makes the comments above about men's sexual opportunity, but what he is really observing is the relaxation of the regulation of female sexuality.
This pattern of increased rights for women followed by the collapse of society is something that he found to universally true through history. So what comes next for us is not more state control, but rather more corruption and more inefficiency as Western culture slowly descends to the level of the third world.
I tried to merge the threads but was faced with a logistical problem as I did not have the address needed.. Must have misunderstood how it works..
I agree. Letting women run the show is the deathknell of any organisation, be it family or state!!
Female led cultures will always tend to be parasitic on the wider culture that supports such destructiveness, for whatever odd reasons.. They require immense support to barely function..
Such cultures are doomed if they allow the destructive forces of matriarchy too much power..
Which is why I have a tendancy to ignore feminism on the whole.. It is a crock of shit..
What do you mean by "swept away"? Swept away from what?
This article was actually published in a racist journal, which is why he starts by talking about white birthrates. Given that audience, I don't think the author cared about what the general public or academia thinks of it. I don't care about where the article was published, I just think it was well written. The article is aimed at conservatives to explain to them what is happening.
Explanations in social sciences can never be proved. You choose what to believe based on what makes the most sense to you based on your experience and knowledge.
“Explanations in social sciences can never be proved. You choose what to believe based on what makes the most sense to you based on your experience and knowledge.”
Is Sexual Utopia In Power is the basis for the values and outlook of this community? I was under the impression that such work was to be used as a basis for expanding. As such there would be opposition from the expected groups.
“This article was actually published in a racist journal, which is why he starts by talking about white birthrates. Given that audience, I don't think the author cared about what the general public or academia thinks of it. I don't care about where the article was published, I just think it was well written. The article is aimed at conservatives to explain to them what is happening.”
As I read through the article I could not help but get the feeling that some of his message was lost when he aimed for that target audience. I propose contacting Mr. Devlin himself for an on forum Q and A session. Of course this would have to be private to keep the trolls away.
I think most of us agree with most of Sexual Utopia In Power, so it makes a good starting point. I personally don't worry very much about "opposition from the expected groups". Since we aren't trying to change mainstream society, there is little reason for other groups to care about us.
Of course you personally can contact Mr. Devlin. When you say "some of his message was lost", lost on whom? If your concern is better targeting the message for the mainstream, then that would be a non-CoAlpha concern, I think.
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|